Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > April 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 126888 April 14, 1999 - J.V. ANGELES CONST. CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126888. April 14, 1999.]

J.V. ANGELES CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ARIEL CADIENTE SANTOS and PEDRO SANTOS, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


PURISIMA, J.:


In this special civil action for certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order, petitioner seeks to set aside and reverse the Decision 1 promulgated on May 31, 1996 and the Resolution issued on July 10, 1996 by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), denying petitioner’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration in a case, entitled "Pedro Santos, Et Al., v. J.V. Angeles Construction Corporation, Et. Al.", on the ground that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of jurisdiction.

The facts that matter are, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Private respondent Pedro Santos was employed in 1969, as a carpenter, by the petitioner, J. V. Angeles Construction Corporation (Corporation). In 1973, he was promoted to the position of foreman which he held until his retirement in February 1992 when he was sixty-two (62) years old.

On October 25, 1993, he brought a complaint for retirement benefits and service incentive leave pay before the NLRC, National Capital Region Arbitration Branch, against the corporation. After the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement during the conciliatory proceedings of the case, they were required to submit their respective position papers. On July 25, 1995, Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos came out with a decision for private respondent, disposing thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents are hereby directed to pay complainant Pedro Santos his retirement pay equivalent to � month pay for every year of service including the five (5) days service incentive leave pay three (3) years prior to the filing of this case and � of the 13th month pay.

x       x       x" 2

Petitioner’s appeal filed with the NLRC on August 14, 1995, assailed the said ruling of the Labor Arbiter granting retirement benefits to the herein private respondent, by giving Rep. Act. No. 7641 (Retirement Pay Law) a retroactive application although respondent Pedro Santos had retired almost a year prior to the effectivity of said law on January 7, 1993. It is petitioner’s submission that what is applicable is the ruling laid down in Llora Motors, Inc. v. Drilon 3 wherein the Court held that in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract, there is no obligation on the part of the employer to set up a retirement scheme over and above that already established under existing laws. Since Santos has been receiving his retirement benefits from the Social Security System (SSS), he cannot anymore ask for additional benefits from his employer in the absence of company practice, policy or contract granting such benefits.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

On May 31, 1996, the Third Division of the NLRC came out with the questioned decision, upholding the Labor Arbiter’s grant of retirement benefits to Pedro Santos, and disposing thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We sustain the award of retirement benefits to Santos. Respondents objection thereto is premised on the fact that complainant retired almost a year before the effectivity of R.A. 7641. In the case of Oro Enterprises v. NLRC, G.R. No 110861, Nov. 14, 1994, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of retroactive application of law considering that claim for benefits was filed when law already took effect. We apply said ruling to instant claim. . ." 4

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision below, petitioner found its way to this Court via the petition under consideration, contending that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter awarding retirement benefits to private respondent Pedro Santos, by giving retroactive application to the provisions of R.A. 7641.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The pertinent law is Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by R. A. 7641:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 287. Retirement. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.

In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements: Provided, however, that an employee’s retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreements shall not be less than those provided herein.

In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one half (�) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year.

Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term "one half (�) month salary" shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.cralawnad

x       x       x


Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal provisions provided under Article 288 of this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Oro Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRC , 5 the court held that R.A. 7641 can be applied retroactively, rationalizing thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"R.A. 7641 is undoubtedly a social legislation. The law has been enacted as a labor protection measure and as a curative statute that — absent a retirement plan devised by, an agreement with, or a voluntary grant from, an employer — can respond, in part at least, to the financial well-being of workers during their twilight years soon following their life of labor. There should be little doubt about the fact that the law can apply to labor contracts still existing at the time the statute has taken effect, and that its benefits can be reckoned not only from the date of the law’s enactment but retroactively to the time said employment contracts have started. . ." (Emphasis supplied)

In CJC Trading, Inc. v. NLRC , 6 the aforecited doctrine was elaborated upon by enumerating the circumstances which must concur before the law could be given retroactive effect, to wit: (1) the claimant for retirement benefits was still the employee of the employer at the time the statute took effect; and (2) the claimant has complied with the requirements for eligibility under the statute for such retirement benefits.

In the recent case of Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Et. Al. v. NLRC, Et Al., 7 the Court had occasion to apply the Oro and CJC rulings. In the said case, private respondent Mariano Federico resigned as a security guard of the security agency on September 16, 1991. Thereafter, he sought alternative reliefs from his employer, such as termination pay corresponding to his years of service or retirement benefits. PSVSIA rejected his claim for termination pay on the ground that he had voluntarily resigned. The alternative claim for retirement benefits was likewise denied because there was no collective or individual agreement providing for retirement benefits. When subject claims were formally brought to the Labor Arbiter, the latter sustained the stand of petitioners but directed them to pay the respondent the previously offered financial assistance in the amount of P10,000.00. The NLRC reversed the said judgment by giving a retroactive application to the provisions of R.A. 7641.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

When it was elevated to this Court on certiorari, the court found that although respondent Federico had reached the minimum retirement age under the statute, he was no longer an employee of petitioner PSVSIA when the law took effect. R.A. 7641 could not be applied retroactively in his favor in the absence of the first circumstance. Consequently, he could not seek the beneficial provisions of the law and must settle for the petitioners’ offer of financial assistance.

In the case under scrutiny, private respondent Santos retired and ceased to be an employee of petitioner on February 1992, eleven (11) months before the effectivity of R.A. 7641, and he brought his complaint on October 23, 1993, nine (9) months after the law’s effectivity. It is thus decisively clear that the provisions of R.A. 7641 could not be given retroactive effect in his favor. Consequently, the NLRC erred in upholding the Labor Arbiter’s award of retirement benefits to private Respondent.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the Decision, dated May 31, 1996, and Resolution, dated July 10, 1996, of respondent National Labor Relations Commission are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER issued on November 27, 1996 made PERMANENT. No pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Per Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier, Third Division, National Labor Relations Commission, with Commissioners Ireneo B. Bernardo and Joaquin A. Tanodra concurring.

2. Rollo, p. 52.

3. 179 SCRA 175.

4. Rollo, p. 41.

5. 238 SCRA 105.

6. 246 SCRA 724.

7. G.R. No. 115019, April 14, 1997.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






April-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123910 April 5, 1999 - GODOFREDO UNILONGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96202 April 13, 1999 - ROSELLA D. CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117221 April 13, 1999 - IBM PHIL. INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125318 April 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO REBAMONTAN

  • G.R. No. 97761 April 14, 1999 - AGUEDA DE VERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116566 & 120149 April 14, 1999 - DOMINGO DICO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123479 April 14, 1999 - SOLANDA ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123727 April 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GASTADOR

  • G.R. No. 126303 April 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO NULLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126712 April 14, 1999 - LEONIDA C. QUINTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126773 April 14, 1999 - RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126888 April 14, 1999 - J.V. ANGELES CONST. CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 128192 April 14, 1999 - ALU and PEA ALU v. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128869 April 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARK PERUCHO

  • G.R. No. 129298 April 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CANTOS

  • G.R. No. 131803 April 14, 1999 - SOTERA PAULINO MARCELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131858-59 April 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALBA

  • G.R. No. 133676 April 14, 1999 - TUPAY T. LOONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135244 April 15, 1999 - YALE LAND DEV’T. CORP. v. PEDRO CARAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123148 April 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO NAVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128288 April 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO ONABIA

  • G.R. No. 128524 April 20, 1999 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-10-138-MTCC April 21, 1999 - RE: CASES LEFT UNDECIDED BY JUDGE NARCISO M. BUMANGLAG, JR.

  • A.M. No. MTJ 98-1168 April 21, 1999 - LUALHATI M. LIWANAG v. PATERNO H. LUSTRE

  • G.R. No. 94902-06 April 21, 1999 - BENJAMIN V. KHO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99331 April 21, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112985 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN L. ROMERO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 120027 April 21, 1999 - EDNA A. RAYNERA, ET AL. v. FREDDIE HICETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120141 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORNA B. GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120324 April 21, 1999 - PHILEX MINING CORP. v. CIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120420 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO MIRANDILLA BERMAS

  • G.R. No. 122078 April 21, 1999 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125310 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR LAGMAY

  • G.R. No. 125932 April 21, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDE A. MILLER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126531 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT ELIJORDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126545 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. 127246 April 21, 1999 - MANUELITA C. ERMITAÑO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130599-600 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MANGGASIN

  • G.R. Nos. 130665 and 137996-97 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BALIAO EMPANTE

  • G.R. No. 130940 April 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODELINE CASTILLON

  • G.R. No. 131012 April 21, 1999 - RICARDO T. GLORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131113 April 21, 1999 - DIONISIA ARTAJOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131467 April 21, 1999 - BENEDICTO CAÑETE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131570 April 21, 1999 - STO. NIÑO DEV’T. CORP. v. BRICCIO SANTOS

  • AM No. RTJ-99-1434 April 29, 1999 - ARNULFO B. TAURO v. ANGEL V. COLET

  • G.R. No. 117518 April 29, 1999 - RICARDO B. LAPID in behalf of ARIEL LAPID v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119218 April 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CRISTOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121899 April 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO LIMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125602 April 29, 1999 - ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126777 April 29, 1999 - DOMINGO LAO, ET AL. v. ESTRELLA VILLONES-LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127811 April 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO COMESARIO

  • G.R. No. 128579 April 29, 1999 - CITY OF CEBU v. HEIRS OF CANDIDO RUBI

  • G.R. No. 135805 April 29, 1999 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. PEDRO O. DACOYCOY

  • Adm. Case. No. 4500 April 30, 1999 - BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

  • Adm. Case No. 4758 April 30, 1999 - VICTOR NUNGA v. VENANCIO VIRAY

  • Adm. Case No. 4826 April 30, 1999 - ROSALIA VILLARUEL, ET AL. v. JOSE A. GRAPILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121962 April 30, 1999 - ESPERANZA C. ESCORPIZO, ET AL. v. UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122101 April 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO MARFIL

  • G.R. No. 122860 April 30, 1999 - ASTA MOSKOWSKY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122895 April 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BACOR

  • G.R. Nos. 124559-66 April 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIBERTO MAGLENTE

  • G.R. No. 129533 April 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PEDRES

  • G.R. No. 131529 April 30, 1999 - IRINEO V. INTIA, ET AL. v. COA, ET AL.