Case Digest (G.R. No. 87653)
Facts:
Conrado M. Aquino, Napoleon B. Aromin, Roberto A. Gaspan and Nicardo P. Blanquisco, G.R. No. 87653. February 11, 1992, the Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners were employees of private respondent Otis Elevator Company who were terminated as part of a company retrenchment to "streamline its operations, consolidate certain functions, reduce its manpower and cut non‑essential spending." The company sent letters informing them that they would be paid one month’s equivalent salary in lieu of notice, other accrued benefits, and "for every year of service with the Company, you shall be paid one month's basic salary or your retirement benefits, if applicable to you, whichever is higher." The petitioners received separation pay computed at one month per year of service pursuant to Section 4, Article VII of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The petitioners subsequently demanded retirement benefits under the company’s Retirement Plan, invoking Section 1, Article XIV of the CBA (which incorporated the Retirement Plan) and Section 5.2, Article V of the Retirement Plan specifying a vesting schedule (50% at 10–<15 years; 75% at 15–<20; 100% at 20+). They pointed to prior instances in which co‑employees (Cleodeveo Soriano, Jr. and Patriciano Destajo, Jr.) who had been separated for redundancy received both separation pay and retirement benefits.
The company refused, contending that separation pay and retirement benefits are mutually exclusive and that by accepting separation pay the petitioners could no longer claim retirement benefits. Before the Labor Arbiter the petitioners prevailed: the Arbiter found the company estopped from withholding retirement benefits and that denying them would constitute unlawful discrimination vis‑à‑vis similarly situated employees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, holding that the CBA’s language made separation pay "subject to" the Retirement Plan (i.e., not cumulative) and invoking the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code (Book VI, Rule 1, Sec. 14(a)) as implying excl...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners entitled to recover retirement benefits under the Retirement Plan notwithstanding that they have already received separation pay?
- If so, did the CBA or Retirement Plan or the Omnibus Rules bar payment of both benefits, or does prior unequal treatment (payment to other employees) estop the company from denying the ben...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)