Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. DIOSCORO D. SEDAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 199554 2015-02-18	ZENAIDA PAZ v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO. LEONEN, J.
In any event, this court has awarded financial assistance "as a measure of social justice [in] exceptional circumstances, and as an equitable concession."[105]
	GR No. 199554 2015-02-18	ZENAIDA PAZ v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO. LEONEN, J.
Eastern Shipping Lines awarded Sedan with financial assistance equal to one-half-month pay for every year of service. Sedan was hired as a 3rd marine engineer and oiler from 1973 until his last voyage in 1997.[111] On the other hand, petitioner Paz was a seasonal employee who worked for periods ranging from three to seven months a year.[112] This court thus finds the following Court of Appeals formula for financial assistance as equitable: one-half-month pay multiplied by 29 years in service and then divided by 2.
	GR No. 199890 2013-08-19	JEROME M. DAABAY v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. REYES, J.
Being intended as a mere measure of equity and social justice, the NLRC's award was then akin to a financial assistance or separation pay that is granted to a dismissed employee notwithstanding the legality of his dismissal. Jurisprudence on such financial assistance and separation pay then equally apply to this case. The Court has ruled, time and again, that financial assistance, or whatever name it is called, as a measure of social justice is allowed only in instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.[34] We explained in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. NLRC[35]:[S]eparation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
	GR No. 169191 2011-06-01	ROMEO VILLARUEL v. YEO HAN GUAN PERALTA, J.
Citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Sedan,[20] this Court, in the more recent case of Eastern Shipping Lines v. Antonio,[21] held: But we must stress that this Court did allow, in several instances, the grant of financial assistance. In the words of Justice Sabino de Leon, Jr., now deceased, financial assistance may be allowed as a measure of social justice and exceptional circumstances, and as an equitable concession. The instant case equally calls for balancing the interests of the employer with those of the worker, if only to approximate what Justice Laurel calls justice in its secular sense.
	GR No. 175251 2011-05-30	RODOLFO LUNA v. ALLADO CONSTRUCTION CO. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Also in connection with the second issue, petitioner argued in his Memorandum that, assuming without admitting that there was no illegal dismissal, the award of financial assistance was in accordance with existing jurisprudence pursuant to the principle of social justice. On this point, we agree with petitioner. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc v. Sedan[38] bears certain parallelisms with the present controversy. In Eastern, the employer likewise questioned the grant of financial assistance on the ground that the employee's refusal to report back to work, despite being duly notified of the need for his service, is tantamount to voluntary resignation. In that case, however, we ruled: We are not unmindful of the rule that financial assistance is allowed only in instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Neither are we unmindful of this Court's pronouncements in Arc-Men Food Industries Corporation v. NLRC, and Lemery Savings and Loan Bank v. NLRC, where the Court ruled that when there is no dismissal to speak of, an award of financial assistance is not in order.
	GR No. 171587 2009-10-13	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. FERRER D. ANTONIO PERALTA, J.
In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Sedan,[14] respondent Dioscoro Sedan, a 3rd Marine Engineer and Oiler in one of the vessels of Eastern Shipping Lines, after several voyages, applied for optional retirement. Eastern Shipping Lines deferred action since his services on board ship were still needed. Despite several demands for his optional retirement, the requests were not acted upon. Thus, Sedan filed a complaint before the LA demanding payment of his retirement benefits. This Court ruled that the eligibility age for optional retirement was set at 60 years. Since respondent was only 48 years old when he applied for optional retirement, he cannot claim optional retirement benefits as a matter of right. We further added that employees who are under the age of 60 years, but have rendered at least 3,650 days (10 years) on board ship may also apply for optional retirement, but the approval of their application depends upon the exclusive prerogative and sole option of petitioner company. In that case, the retirement gratuity plan is the same as in the case at bar.
	GR No. 156644 2008-07-28	UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION v. AGRIPINO CABALLEDA NACHURA, J.
Third. Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age, agrees to sever his or her employment with the former.[29] The age of retirement is primarily determined by the existing agreement between the employer and the employees. However, in the absence of such agreement, the retirement age shall be fixed by law. Under Art. 287 of the Labor Code as amended, the legally mandated age for compulsory retirement is 65 years, while the set minimum age for optional retirement is 60 years.[30]