REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
Financial Center, R oxas Boulevard, 1308 Pasay City
IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM
FOR CONVERSION OF
RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF:
GSIS BOARD CASE NO. 010-12
POTENCIANO TURIANO, ONOFRE
RAMOS, ARSENIO BONIFACIO,
AND ALEXANDER TUGADE
){-------------------------------------------------------){
This treats the Last and F inal Motion for Reconsideration dated 28
July 2 014 1 filed by Petitioners Bonifacio, Tug a de and Turiano praying for another reconsideration of the Board's Decision dated 10 October 2013 partially granting their petition.
After the Board issued a Decision in this case on 1 0 October 2 0 13,
GSIS received Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated 21
November 2013 on 11 December 2013. Then, on 13 March 2014, GSIS received a Motion for Clarificatory Judgment dated 10 March 2014, flied by Petitioners Bonifacio and Tugade. Petitioners raised as grounds in the subject motions the waiver of legal interest or assuming interest is due, the same should only commence in 2009 when the Supreme Court promulgated the Herrera case, and the Total Length of Service, not the
Premium-Based Policy, as basis in computing their retirement benefits.
Apart from the fact that both motions were filed out of time, the afore-mentioned Motion for Clarificatory Judgment was in essence, a
2nd motion for consideration, though not denominated as such, as it also
1 A c opy of which wa s received by the GSIS on 31 july 2 01 4.

.
.
Resolution
GSIS Case No. 010-12
Page 2 of5 sought the modification of the subject Decision. However, in the interest of justice, the Board resolved both motions in its Resolution dated 10 July
2014 which partially granted their motions by removing the interest imposed on the premiums they received under R.A. No. 1616.
In effect, therefore, the instant motion is now already Petitioners'
3rd motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners' 3ro motion for reconsideration is hereby denied outright.
While the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of
R.A. No. 8291 is silent on how to treat 2nd or 3rd motions for reconsideration, Section 32 of the RIRR prescribes for the suppletory application of the Rules of Court in proceedings before the GSIS in the exercise of its Quasi-Judicial function.
Section 5 Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "no party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order." that:
Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court likewise provides
SECTION 4. Period of appeal. The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by l a w for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo.
Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period , the
Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen ( 15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further

Resolution
GSIS Case No. 010-12
Page 3 of5 extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen ( 15) days. 2
Accordingly, petitioners'
3rct
Motion for Reconsideration cannot be given due course for being a prohibited pleading.
Being a prohibited pleading, Petitioners' present motion is a mere scrap of paper and did not toll the running of the period to appeal.
In the case of Isabel N. Guzman vs. Aniano N. Guzman ,
3 the
Supreme Court ruled that:
The petitioner's resort to a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to assail the RTC decision and orders is misplaced. When the RTC issued its decision and orders, it did so in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; the proper remedy therefrom is a Rule 42 petition for review. Instead, the petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration and thereby lost her right to appeal; a second motion for reconsideration being a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 5, Rule 3 7 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration should be considered as mere scraps of paper, not having been filed at all, and unable to toll the reglementary period for an appeal.
The RTC decision became final and executory after fifteen
( 15) days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. It is elementary that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is "immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceiv ed to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land." Thus, the RTC decision , even if allegedly erroneous, can no longer be modified.
Section 31 of R.A. No. 8291 provides that an Appeal from a
Decision of the Board should b e filed under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court which gives Petitioners a period of fifteen (15) days upon which to file the same.
2
3
Em phasis supplied.
G .R. No. 172588. March 13, 20 1 3

.
, .. ,
Resolution
GSIS Case No. 010-12
Page 4 of5
Petitioners admittedly received a copy of the Board's Resolution dated 10 july 2014 resolving their pt and 2nd motions for reconsideration on 18 July 2014. Instead of filing the proper appeal, Petitioners filed the present Last and Final Motion for Reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading. Not having tolled the period to appeal provided under the
Rules, the Board's Decision dated 10 October 2013, as modified in its
Resolution dated 10 July 2014 had already attained finality and can no longer be modified.
WHEREFORE, ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the instant 3 r d Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
No further pleading will be entertained by the Board in this case.
So Ordered. Pasay City,
1 ~ SE!_, iJ~4.
-....._-.,,.,...--L L. LACSON, Jr.
Chairman
TG.
ice Chairman
~
-
Trustee
q
~
RO
~n~
TINO-DAVID c
-
GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABE-MARTINEZ
GREG~~~\.~ t

' • t • ,
·,
,
- - -
.
--
··-···---
-
Resolution
GSIS Case No. 010-12
Page 5 of5 o~ LE-I'f'Jr
FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III*
Trustee
Copy Furnished:
Potenciano Turiano
Zone 2, Roadside A ,
Paloyon, Nabua
Camarines Sur
Onofre Ramos
No. 243 Baltazar Subdivision
Poblacion Norte
Paniqui Tarlac
Arsenio Bonifacio
266-E, Teresa
Sta. Mesa, Manila
Atty. Misael M. Ladaga
Counsel for CoC
Prosecution and Quasi-Judicial Cases Dept .
Legal Services Office
Alexander Tugade
Purok 5, Brgy. Lourdes
Tiwi, Albay
• Did not participate in the discussion

•• o
# I
CERTIFICATION
I, JOHN ANDREW R. SALAZAR , Attorney V at the
Adjudication Department, Policy and Adjudication Office, Legal
Services Group, having been designated as Hearing Officer to draft the resolution to the Last and Final Motion for Reconsideration of
Petitioners Potenciano Turiano , Onofre Ramos, Arsenio Bonifacio and Alexander Tugade in GSIS Board Case No. 010-12 entitled "In the Matter of the Claims for Retirement Benefits, Potenciano
Turiano, Onofre Ramos, Arsenio Bonifacio and Alexander
Tugade, Petitioners" hereb y certify that the statement of facts herein stated and being presented before this Board is accurate and true , based on the records of the case , the pleadings and other documents submitted by the parties .
This certification is issued this 28 May 2014 in compliance with Board Resolution No . 198-A adopted on September 15, 2004.
Pasay City, Philippines,
- - - - - -
HN ANDREW R. S~~~'"
Hearing Officer

BOARD MEETING NO. 17
25 SEPTEMBER 2014
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 141
WHEREAS, Mr. Potenciano Turiano, Mr.
Arsenio Bonifacio, and Mr. Alexander Tugade filed another motion for reconsideration of the Board's
Decision dated 10 October 2013 in GSIS Board Case
No. 010-12 after the Board partially granted
Petitioners' first and second motions for reconsideration in its Resolution dated 10 July 2014;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 30 of R.A. No.
8291, the GSIS has original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising from the application of the laws administered by the GSIS;
RESOLVED, to APPROVE and CONFIRM the
Resolution in GSIS Board Case No. 010-12, In the
Matter of the Claim for Conversion of Retirement
Benefits of Potenciano Turiano, Onofre Ramos, Arsenio
Bonifacio, and Alexander Tugade, the dispositive portion of which states:
"WHEREFORE, ALL THE FOREGOING
CONSIDERED , the instant
3rd
Motion for
Reconsideration is here by DENIED .
"No further pleading will be entertained by the Board in this case.
"So Ordered."
A copy of the Resolution in GSIS Board Case
No. 010-12 is attached and made an integral part of this Resolution.