[ G.R. No. 140030. May 8, 2000]

RUFINA PATIS FACTORY vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 8 2000.

G.R. No. 140030 (Rufina Patis Factory vs. Court of Appeals and Agapito B. Lapid.)

In a letter dated 17 April 2000, petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's resolution of 02 March 2000 denying its Motion for Leave of Court to Refer (the case) to (the) Court En Banc for lack of merit.

It would not be amiss to recount the facts of the instant case:

Agapito B. Lapid (private respondent) so worked with Rufina Patis Factory (petitioner) as a delivery truck driver since 1957. He tendered his letter of resignation on 31 March 1993, to take effect 01 April 1993. He was at that time sixty-four (64) years old. On 09 august 1995, private respondent and his co-employee, Tagumpay E. Hizon, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC"), against petitioner for payment of retirement benefits under Republic Act "R. A.") 7641, otherwise known as the Retirement Pay Loan, which came into effect on 07 January 1993. On 11 December 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting the claim of private respondent in the amount of P127,237.50, so computed as follows:

P145.00 x 22.5 days x 39 years = P127,237.50

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the NLRC ascribing error to the Labor arbiter for awarding retirement benefits under R.A. 7641 on the contention that the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and therein complainants was severed three (3) months before the effectivity of R.A. 7641. The NLRC, in its 18 August 1998 decision, modified the assailed decision. The award of retirement pay to Hizon was annulled and set aside after finding that he had ceased to be an employee of petitioner some three (3) months before the effectivity of R. A. 7641. On the other hand, the award to private respondent was upheld albeit reduced to P 99,433.62.

Still dissatisfied, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for having retroactively applied R. A. 7641. It urged that the case of Oro Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC 1 238 SCRA 105. should be re-examined in view of recent decision of the Court abandoning the principle therein. The appellate court, in its decision of 02 March 1999, dismissed the petition. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration proved unavailing.

Undaunted, petitioner went to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the appellate court. Finding no reversible error, the Court denied the petition in its resolution of 17 November 1999. Its motion for reconsideration failed to salve its cause. In a last ditch effort, petitioner filed the "Motion for Leave of Court to Refer to Court En Banc." In this incident petitioner reiterated its stance that the Court in recent decisions had already deviated from its pronouncement in the Oro Case.

In a nutshell, the Court in Oro declared that R.A. 7641, a social legislation, should apply to labor contracts still existing at the time of its effectivity and that its benefits should be reckoned from the time said employment contracts started.

A perusal of the recent decisions invoked by petitioner would readily disclose that none of them was inconsistent with Oro and indeed, all of them were set against factual millieu incongruent with it. In the case of CJC Trading Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 2 246 SCRA 724. the Court, perusing the pronouncement made in the Oro case, enunciated the conditions sine qua non for the retroactive application of R. A. 7641: (1) the claimant for retirement benefits was still the employee of the employer at the time the statue took effect; and (2) the claimant was in compliance with the requirements for eligibility under the statue for such retirement benefits. Pursuant thereto, the Court ruled that R. A. 7641 was inapplicable since private respondents therein had not yet reached the age of sixty (60) years at the time they ceased working for therein petitioner and had terminated their employment by reason of resignation before the statute took effect. Pantranco North express vs. NLRC, 3 259 SCRA 161. merely elucidated that the Labor Code and R. A. 7641 permit employers and employees to fix the applicable retirement age at below 60 years. In Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 4 271 SCRA 209. similar to the CJC case, private respondent tendered his letter of resignation on 16 September 1991 or about two years prior to the effectivity of R. A. 7641 in 1993. Private respondent employee in Cabacaban vs. NLRC (Fourth Division) 5 277 SCRA 671. was separated from employment in 1978 long before R. a. 7641 took effect in 1993. Finally, in J. V. Angeles Construction vs. NLRC, 6 305 SCRA 734. therein private respondent retired and ceased to be an employee of petitioner on February 1992 or eleven (11) months before the effectivity of R.A. 7641.

WHEREFORE, the Urgent Appeal for Reconsideration is denied for lack 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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com