Lawyerly

GR No. 185449

2014-11-12

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In the absence of an express or implied prohibition against it, collection of both retirement benefits and separation pay upon severance from employment is allowed. This is grounded on the social justice policy that doubts should always be resolved in favor of labor rights.[1]

GR No. 191424

2013-08-07

ALFEO D. VIVAS v. MONETARY BOARD OF BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

MENDOZA, J.

(a) It is grave abuse of discretion amounting to loss of jurisdiction to apply the general law embodied in Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act as opposed to the specific law embodied in Sections 11 and 14 of the Rural Banks Act of 1992. (b) Even if it assumed that Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act is applicable, it is still the gravest abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to execute the law with manifest arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, and bad faith, violation of constitutional rights and to further execute a mandate well in excess of its parameters. (c) The power delegated in favor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to place rural banks under receiverships is unconstitutional for being a diminution or invasion of the powers of the Supreme Court, in violation of Section 2, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution.[24] Vivas submits that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when they erroneously applied Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653, instead of Sections 11 and 14 of the Rural Bank Act of 1992 or R.A. No. 7353. He argues that despite the deficiencies, inadequacies and oversights in the conduct of the affairs of ECBI, it has not committed any financial fraud and, hence, its placement under receivership was unwarranted and improper. He posits that, instead, the BSP should have taken over the management of ECBI and extended loans to the financially distrained bank pursuant to Sections 11 and 14 of R.A. No. 7353 because the BSP's power is limited only to supervision and management take-over of banks.

GR No. 173587

2013-07-15

ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION v. ALICE M. SIBAL

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a Decision dated December 4, 2003, the CA granted respondents' Petition and nullified the Decisions of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Relying on the case of Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission,[11] the CA ruled that since there is nothing in the CBA which expressly prohibits the grant of both benefits, those who received separation pay are, therefore, still entitled to retirement gratuity. The CA also took note of Section 5, Article V of Zuellig's January 1, 1968 Retirement Gratuity Plan,[12] which provides that an employee who may be separated from the service for any cause not attributable to his or her own fault or misconduct shall be entitled to full retirement benefits. Since the cause of respondents' separation from work was redundancy, the CA ordered Zuellig to pay respondents retirement gratuity and the monetary equivalent of their unused sick leave on top of the redundancy pay previously granted to them. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

GR No. 162372

2011-10-19

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Such is not the case with the GSIS RFP. Its very objective, "[t]o motivate and reward employees for meritorious, faithful, and satisfactory service,"[60] contradicts the nature of an early retirement incentive plan, or a financial assistance plan, which involves a substantial amount that is given to motivate employees to retire early. Instead, it falls exactly within the purpose of a retirement benefit, which is a form of reward for an employee's loyalty and lengthy service,[61] in order to help him or her enjoy the remaining years of his life.

GR Nos. 156556-57

2011-10-04

ENRIQUE U. BETOY v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PERALTA, J.

In the case of Santos v. Servier Philippines, Inc., [62] citing Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, [63] We declared that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer. A separation pay is given during one's employable years, while retirement benefits are given during one's unemployable years. Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. [64]

GR No. 166377

2008-11-28

MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES

NACHURA, J.

We have declared in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer.[34] Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. However, this is only true if there is no specific prohibition against the payment of both benefits in the retirement plan and/or in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).[35]

GR No. 166377

2008-11-28

MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES

NACHURA, J.

We have declared in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer.[34] Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. However, this is only true if there is no specific prohibition against the payment of both benefits in the retirement plan and/or in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).[35]

GR No. 166377

2008-11-28

MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES

NACHURA, J.

We have declared in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer.[34] Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. However, this is only true if there is no specific prohibition against the payment of both benefits in the retirement plan and/or in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).[35]

GR No. 150180

2008-10-17

FLAVIO S. SUAREZ v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Petitioners contend that they are entitled to retirement benefits in addition to the separation pay they received from respondent pursuant to Article XIV of the existing CBA providing for retirement benefits. They likewise call our attention to Aquino v. NLRC,[7] holding that payment of separation benefits does not exclude payment of retirement benefits in the absence of a specific prohibition in the retirement plan and the CBA.

GR NO. 156317

2005-04-26

CARLOS F. SALOMON v. ASSOCIATE OF INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LINES

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioners, in the instant petition for review on certiorari, contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that they are not entitled to retirement benefits. Petitioners invoke Sections 1 and 3 of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expressly providing that retirement benefits may be granted to them in addition to their separation pay. They likewise call our attention to Aquino vs. NLRC[4] holding that payment of separation benefits does not exclude payment of retirement benefits.

GR No. 141868

2004-05-28

JOSE B. CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioners, in the instant petition for review on certiorari, contend that the Court of Appeals erred in relying upon our ruling in Cipriano vs. San Miguel [5] that the employee separated from the service is entitled to either the amount prescribed in the retirement plan or the separation pay provided by law, whichever is higher. Petitioners invoke Section 4, Article VI of respondent's Retirement Plan (of which they are members) expressly providing that retirement benefits may be granted to them in addition to their separation pay. They likewise call our attention to Aquino vs. NLRC[6] holding that payment of separation benefits does not exclude payment of retirement benefits.

GR No. 141868

2004-05-28

JOSE B. CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Aquino vs. NLRC,[9] citing University of the East vs. Minister of Labor[10] and Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled that if there is no prohibition both in the Retirement Plan and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the employee has the right to recover from the employer his separation pay and retirement benefits, thus:"The Court feels that if the private respondent really intended to make the separation pay and the retirement benefits mutually exclusive, it should have sought inclusion of the corresponding provision in the Retirement Plan and the Collective Bargaining Agreement so as to remove all possible ambiguity regarding this matter.

	GR No. 185449 2014-11-12	GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES v. MARINA L. ANGUS DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the absence of an express or implied prohibition against it, collection of both retirement benefits and separation pay upon severance from employment is allowed. This is grounded on the social justice policy that doubts should always be resolved in favor of labor rights.[1]
	GR No. 191424 2013-08-07	ALFEO D. VIVAS v. MONETARY BOARD OF BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MENDOZA, J.
(a) It is grave abuse of discretion amounting to loss of jurisdiction to apply the general law embodied in Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act as opposed to the specific law embodied in Sections 11 and 14 of the Rural Banks Act of 1992. (b) Even if it assumed that Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act is applicable, it is still the gravest abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to execute the law with manifest arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, and bad faith, violation of constitutional rights and to further execute a mandate well in excess of its parameters. (c) The power delegated in favor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to place rural banks under receiverships is unconstitutional for being a diminution or invasion of the powers of the Supreme Court, in violation of Section 2, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution.[24] Vivas submits that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when they erroneously applied Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653, instead of Sections 11 and 14 of the Rural Bank Act of 1992 or R.A. No. 7353. He argues that despite the deficiencies, inadequacies and oversights in the conduct of the affairs of ECBI, it has not committed any financial fraud and, hence, its placement under receivership was unwarranted and improper. He posits that, instead, the BSP should have taken over the management of ECBI and extended loans to the financially distrained bank pursuant to Sections 11 and 14 of R.A. No. 7353 because the BSP's power is limited only to supervision and management take-over of banks.
	GR No. 173587 2013-07-15	ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION v. ALICE M. SIBAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a Decision dated December 4, 2003, the CA granted respondents' Petition and nullified the Decisions of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Relying on the case of Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission,[11] the CA ruled that since there is nothing in the CBA which expressly prohibits the grant of both benefits, those who received separation pay are, therefore, still entitled to retirement gratuity. The CA also took note of Section 5, Article V of Zuellig's January 1, 1968 Retirement Gratuity Plan,[12] which provides that an employee who may be separated from the service for any cause not attributable to his or her own fault or misconduct shall be entitled to full retirement benefits. Since the cause of respondents' separation from work was redundancy, the CA ordered Zuellig to pay respondents retirement gratuity and the monetary equivalent of their unused sick leave on top of the redundancy pay previously granted to them. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
	GR No. 162372 2011-10-19	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Such is not the case with the GSIS RFP. Its very objective, "[t]o motivate and reward employees for meritorious, faithful, and satisfactory service,"[60] contradicts the nature of an early retirement incentive plan, or a financial assistance plan, which involves a substantial amount that is given to motivate employees to retire early. Instead, it falls exactly within the purpose of a retirement benefit, which is a form of reward for an employee's loyalty and lengthy service,[61] in order to help him or her enjoy the remaining years of his life.
	GR Nos. 156556-57 2011-10-04	ENRIQUE U. BETOY v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PERALTA, J.
In the case of Santos v. Servier Philippines, Inc., [62] citing Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, [63] We declared that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer. A separation pay is given during one's employable years, while retirement benefits are given during one's unemployable years. Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. [64]
	GR No. 166377 2008-11-28	MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES NACHURA, J.
We have declared in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer.[34] Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. However, this is only true if there is no specific prohibition against the payment of both benefits in the retirement plan and/or in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).[35]
	GR No. 166377 2008-11-28	MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES NACHURA, J.
We have declared in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer.[34] Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. However, this is only true if there is no specific prohibition against the payment of both benefits in the retirement plan and/or in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).[35]
	GR No. 166377 2008-11-28	MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS v. SERVIER PHILIPPINES NACHURA, J.
We have declared in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] that the receipt of retirement benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay. Separation pay is a statutory right designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he/she is looking for another employment. On the other hand, retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the employer.[34] Hence, they are not mutually exclusive. However, this is only true if there is no specific prohibition against the payment of both benefits in the retirement plan and/or in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).[35]
	GR No. 150180 2008-10-17	FLAVIO S. SUAREZ v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioners contend that they are entitled to retirement benefits in addition to the separation pay they received from respondent pursuant to Article XIV of the existing CBA providing for retirement benefits. They likewise call our attention to Aquino v. NLRC,[7] holding that payment of separation benefits does not exclude payment of retirement benefits in the absence of a specific prohibition in the retirement plan and the CBA.
	GR NO. 156317 2005-04-26	CARLOS F. SALOMON v. ASSOCIATE OF INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LINES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioners, in the instant petition for review on certiorari, contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that they are not entitled to retirement benefits. Petitioners invoke Sections 1 and 3 of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expressly providing that retirement benefits may be granted to them in addition to their separation pay. They likewise call our attention to Aquino vs. NLRC[4] holding that payment of separation benefits does not exclude payment of retirement benefits.
	GR No. 141868 2004-05-28	JOSE B. CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioners, in the instant petition for review on certiorari, contend that the Court of Appeals erred in relying upon our ruling in Cipriano vs. San Miguel [5] that the employee separated from the service is entitled to either the amount prescribed in the retirement plan or the separation pay provided by law, whichever is higher. Petitioners invoke Section 4, Article VI of respondent's Retirement Plan (of which they are members) expressly providing that retirement benefits may be granted to them in addition to their separation pay. They likewise call our attention to Aquino vs. NLRC[6] holding that payment of separation benefits does not exclude payment of retirement benefits.
	GR No. 141868 2004-05-28	JOSE B. CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Aquino vs. NLRC,[9] citing University of the East vs. Minister of Labor[10] and Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled that if there is no prohibition both in the Retirement Plan and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the employee has the right to recover from the employer his separation pay and retirement benefits, thus:"The Court feels that if the private respondent really intended to make the separation pay and the retirement benefits mutually exclusive, it should have sought inclusion of the corresponding provision in the Retirement Plan and the Collective Bargaining Agreement so as to remove all possible ambiguity regarding this matter.

CONRADO M. AQUINO v. NLRC