ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 107693. February 2, 1999]

SAN MIGUEL CORP. vs. NLRC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 2, 1999.

G.R. No. 107693 (San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Edmundo Y. Torres, Jr. and Manuel C. Castellano )

For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration interposed by petitioner San Miguel Corporation of the decision of this court, promulgated on July 23, 1998, dismissing the petition and affirming in toto the Decision of the NLRC, dated August 21, 1992, in RAB IV-Case No. 0372-84.

The decision sought to be reconsidered found that private respondents were involuntarily retired and therefore, illegally dismissed by petitioner.

Dissatisfied with such finding below, petitioner found its way to this Court, contending that:

I

CONTRARY TO THE JULY 23, 1998 DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS EDMUNDO Y. TORRES, JR. AND MANUEL C. CASTELLANO COULD BE VALIDLY RETIRED UNDER PETITIONER'S HEALTH AND WELFARE PROGRAM AND RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFIT PLAN (HEREINAFTER "RETIREMENT PLAN") WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN THE 1981 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE RETIREMENT PLAN, WHICH REDUCED THE RETIRABLE PERIOD OF SERVICE FROM 20 TO 15 YEARS, APPLIES TO ALL QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER, INCLUDING THE HEREIN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS REGARDLESS OF THEIR POSITION, AND IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE UNION MEMBERS.

II

THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HEREIN WERE NOT ILLEGALLY AND INVOLUNTARILY DISMISSED BECAUSE THEIR SEVERANCE OF EMPLOYMENT FROM PETITIONER WAS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THEIR EXERCISE OF THE OPTIONS GIVEN TO THEM.

Petitioner theorizes that the private respondents could be retired under the Retirement plan independently of the CBA. This contention is untenable. It is evidently an afterthought and repugnant to its original stance. What is more, petitioner has not shown that there is a Retirement Plan, separate and distinct from CBA.

The other assigned error had been passed upon in the formulation of the Decision sought to be reconsidered, which after giving a second hard look, we discern no ground to disturb.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration under consideration is DENIED for want of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE