G.R. No. L-3974 - Chua Gui Seng vs. General Sales Supply Co., Inc.

On June 1, 2001, Alfredo F. Laya, Jr. (petitioner) was hired by Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) as Chief Legal Counsel with the rank of Vice President.
The letter of appointment mentioned several benefits including membership in the Provident Fund Program/Retirement Program but did not specify details of the retirement plan or the compulsory retirement age.
PVB had Retirement Plan Rules and Regulations effective since January 1, 1996, providing:

Normal retirement at age 60;
Early retirement allowed with Board approval starting at age 50 with at least 10 years’ service;
Late retirement allowed up to age 65 with Board approval on yearly basis.

On June 14, 2007, PVB informed petitioner by letter of his retirement effective July 1, 2007.
Petitioner requested an extension of tenure for two (2) years pursuant to the Bank’s retirement plan, but this was denied on July 18, 2007.
PVB formally certified petitioner’s retirement effective July 1, 2007 on March 6, 2008.
Petitioner claimed he was unaware of PVB’s retirement plan prior to employment and alleged that the denial of his extension request was to “avoid precedence.”

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PVB and its president, Ricardo A. Balbido, Jr., with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded a reasonable indemnity of P200,000 due to flaw in denial of term extension.
The NLRC affirmed dismissal and deleted the indemnity award.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC ruling, holding that petitioner had tacitly consented to the retirement plan by accepting appointment and that the plan was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Petitioner’s subsequent petitions for review were denied by the Supreme Court First Division; however, he filed a second motion for reconsideration requesting en banc review.
The Supreme Court en banc accepted the referral to address issues concerning the acceptance of the second motion for reconsideration, the nature of PVB as a private or public entity, and the validity of petitioner’s retirement at age 60.

PVB contended it was a private entity not owned or controlled by government, operating under general corporation and banking laws, with shares held by Filipino veterans and no government stock.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued PVB was a government instrumentality/public corporation, hence civil service laws with mandatory retirement at age 65 applied.

Whether the Supreme Court en banc properly accepted petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration after entry of judgment.

Whether PVB is a private entity or a public instrumentality/government corporation.
Whether petitioner was validly retired at age 60 under PVB’s retirement plan.