MANILA, Philippines - I write to your good office regarding the story Public Money written by your columnist Mr. Alex Magno and published in the February 4, 2010 issue of The Philippine STAR. Mr. Magno wrote about the decision of the Supreme Court promulgated on December 18, 2009 in the consolidated cases of GSIS versus RTC of Pasig (G.R. No. 175393) and GSIS versus Hon. Celso Laviña (G.R. No. 177731).
Both cases involved several parcels of land in Pasig City which were mortgaged to the GSIS by the owner thereof back in 1956. In 1975, when the mortgage was unpaid, the GSIS foreclosed the said parcels of land, including other parcels of land which were not mortgaged to it. As expected, the owner of the parcels of land wrongfully foreclosed by the GSIS brought suit in court to protect his interests. Instead of returning to the lawful owner the parcels of land which it wrongfully foreclosed, the GSIS resisted the claim and pursued a protracted legal battle in different trial courts, different divisions of the Court of Appeals, and in not just one but two petitions in the Supreme Court. Finally, after three decades, justice finally prevailed and the Supreme Court rendered judgement against the GSIS and ordered it to pay the lawful owner about one billion pesos.
Mr. Magno made it appear in his column that the GSIS was unjustly ordered to pay a private claim with public money belonging to a pension fund. He also insinuated that the ruling of the Supreme Court is highly suspicious inasmuch as the evidence in favor of the GSIS “was clearly in its favor.” As the legal counsel of Mrs. Rosario Enriquez vda. De Santiago, now the lawful owner of the parcels of land wrongfully foreclosed by the GSIS, I feel that there is need to set the record straight in the interest of fairness.
The claim of Mr. Magno that the evidence was clearly in favor of GSIS is belied by the fact that the documentary evidence presented by the owner of the parcels of land had been thoroughly relied upon and accepted by the trial courts, the appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. As regards the lamentation of Mr. Magno that public money from a pension fund will be used to pay a private claim, suffice it to say that the GSIS has only itself to blame for its problem. If the GSIS rectified its error in 1975 and returned the parcels of land it wrongfully foreclosed instead of fighting a protracted court litigation using all the resources of the national government at its disposal, then it would not be in its current predicament. It will be the height of injustice if the GSIS were allowed to repudiate the legal consequences of its patently illegal and unjust acts on the sole excuse that its funds are public pension funds. If the GSIS argument were to be sustained, then the public money it handles becomes its license to become reckless and improvident in its commercial transactions without being liable for the same. To state the obvious, it is not the fault of Mrs. Santiago that the GSIS is managed by reckless and improvident individuals. A contrary court ruling will only embolden the GSIS to continue with its reckless and improvident practices regarding the wrongful foreclosure of mortgaged properties.
I will appreciate it very much if this letter is published in your newspaper. — Atty. JOSE A. SUING, Legal counsel of Mrs. Rosario Enriquez vda. De Santiago