Case Digest (G.R. No. 120802)
Facts:
Jose T. Capili v. National Labor Relations Commission, and University of Mindanao, G.R. No. 120802, May 18, 1998, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Jose T. Capili, Jr. was employed by private respondent University of Mindanao (UM) as a college instructor beginning November 1982. On 2 July 1993 UM informed him that under UM’s retirement program he would be eligible for retirement upon reaching age sixty on 18 August 1993. By answer dated 5 August 1993 the petitioner invoked Section 4, Rule II, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (as amended by R.A. No. 7641) and declared he was not opting to retire at 60 but would continue to serve until the compulsory retirement age of 65. UM replied on 10 August 1993 that its retirement plan allowed it to retire him and that the employee-option rule cited by petitioner applied only in the absence of a retirement plan.
Perceiving UM’s insistence as constructive dismissal, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI of the NLRC in Davao City seeking reinstatement with back wages, benefits and damages. In its position UM maintained it had a retirement plan (the University of Mindanao & Associated Enterprises Retirement Plan) fixing normal retirement at age 60 and invoked Article 287 of the Labor Code as amended by R.A. No. 7641 and Policy Instruction No. 25 (1977) as authority.
Labor Arbiter Newton Sancho, by decision dated 18 April 1994, dismissed the complaint, finding UM had an existing retirement plan that applied to all its employees as a matter of school policy and that petitioner’s discrimination charge lacked corroboration. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC on 10 May 1994. UM moved to dismiss the appeal as tardy. UM later manifested that petitioner received his retirement pay and accrued benefits on 6 October 1994; petitioner countered that his acceptance was partial and did not render the appeal moot.
On 19 January 1995 the NLRC initially dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, noting 9 May 1994 (the day he could have filed) was a non-working holiday (barangay elections). On 31 March 1995 the NLRC reconsidered and ruled on the merits: it held there was no serious inconsistency between UM’s retirement plan and Article 287 as amended by R.A. No. 7641, that UM had expressly extended its plan to petitioner so it applied, but that petitioner could not be forced to retire at 60 absent justifiable reason because R.A. No. 7641 fixed 65 as compulsory retirement. The NLRC nonetheless found that, during the pendency of the case, petitioner had accepted his retirement benefits in full and without reservation; consequently, he was estopped from pursuing his illegal dismissal claim and the issue became moot and academic. The NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, subject to modification. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 31 May 1995.
Petitioner then sought review in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in dismissing the appeal as tardy and in holding that his acceptance of retirement benefits estop...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner’s acceptance of retirement benefits estops him from pursuing his illegal dismissal claim and renders the case moot or academic.
- Whether respondent University of Mindanao’s retirement plan validly covered petitioner and thus entitled UM to compel retirement at age 60.
- If the plan did not cover petitioner, whether UM could nonetheless force him to retire at age 60 in view of Artic...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)