G.R. No. 188154 - Cercado vs. UNIPROM, Inc.

Petitioner's employment with UNIPROM, Inc. began on December 15, 1978, initially as a ticket seller at Fiesta Carnival, Araneta Center, Quezon City.
She was subsequently promoted first to cashier and then to clerk typist, evidencing a lengthy and progressive service record with the company.

On April 1, 1980, UNIPROM instituted an Employees’ Non-Contributory Retirement Plan, which allowed any participant with at least 20 years of service the option to retire at their own volition or at the option of the company.
On January 1, 2001, in compliance with Republic Act No. 7641, UNIPROM amended the retirement plan. Under this revised plan, the company reserved the right to retire employees who met the qualifying criteria.

In December 2000, UNIPROM rolled out a company-wide early retirement program targeted at 41 employees, including the petitioner, who at that time was 47 years old with 22 years of continuous service.
As part of this program, the petitioner was offered an early retirement package amounting to P171,982.90, which she rejected.

UNIPROM exercised its option under the retirement plan by deciding to retire the petitioner effective February 15, 2001, and issued a check dated the same day for P100,811.70, representing her regular retirement benefits.
The petitioner refused to accept the check, and thereafter, she was not given any further work assignments, prompting her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The petitioner filed a complaint before a Labor Arbiter (LA) alleging illegal dismissal, contending that UNIPROM did not have a bona fide retirement plan and that she had not consented to its terms.
The LA and subsequently the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in her favor by finding her illegally dismissed and ordered her reinstatement with full backwages.
On certiorari, however, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decisions of the LA and NLRC, thereby declaring UNIPROM’s retirement valid and legal under its established retirement plan and consistent with Article 287 of the Labor Code.

The petitioner contended that she did not voluntarily assent to the retirement plan, noting that she was hired before the plan’s institution in 1980.
No explicit consent to the terms or the early retirement option was evidenced by her, and her alleged acknowledgment was found insufficient to constitute the voluntary acceptance required by law.

Whether UNIPROM’s Employees’ Non-Contributory Retirement Plan constitutes a bona fide retirement plan under the law.
Whether the plan, having been unilaterally imposed and lacking explicit acceptance by the petitioner, violates the constitutional right to security of tenure.

Whether the petitioner was validly retired under the terms of the said retirement plan.
Whether the action of retiring an employee at an age (47 years old) significantly below the statutory thresholds, without voluntary agreement, amounts to illegal dismissal.