This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The following pronouncements in Jaculbe v. Silliman University[21] are elucidating: [A]n employer is free to impose a retirement age less than 65 for as long as it has the employees' consent. Stated conversely, employees are free to accept the employer's offer to lower the retirement age if they feel they can get a better deal with the retirement plan presented by the employer. | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| According to Obusan, the PNB-RRP should only apply to employees hired on and after February 21, 2001, the date of its adoption. She insists that if the lowering of the compulsory retirement age to 60 years under the PNB-RRP was the product of an agreement between PNB and its employees, she would definitely accede to be bound by it. She points out that the questioned provision on retirement age was a unilateral act of PNB, to which she did not give her consent. In her Supplement to Petition for Review on Certiorari,[18] Obusan invoked Jaculbe v. Silliman University,[19] where this Court held-- | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Having resolved the instant Petition, we now proceed to address the Manifestation and Supplemental Memorandum, filed by respondent on 17 May 2007, calling our attention to the recent Decision of the First Division of this Court in Alpha C. Jaculbe v. Silliman University, [33] promulgated last 16 March 2007. Based on Jaculbe, respondent prays for the reversal of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals Decisions finding that he was not illegally dismissed by petitioner. | |||||