Case Digest (G.R. No. 181178)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 181178)
Facts:
Amelia R. Obusan v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 181178, July 26, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Amelia R. Obusan was hired by Philippine National Bank (PNB) in 1979 and eventually became Manager of the PNB Medical Office. At the time of her hiring PNB was a government-owned or controlled corporation and its employees were covered by the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977 (PD No. 1146) administered through GSIS. PNB was privatized on May 27, 1996, and its employees, including Obusan, were considered retired from government service; GSIS paid Obusan a retirement gratuity.
PNB’s Board later adopted the PNB Regular Retirement Plan (PNB-RRP) by Resolution No. 30 dated December 22, 2000, and disclosed the plan to employees by memorandum dated February 21, 2001. The plan provided for compulsory retirement at age 60. The plan was registered with the BIR and the Philnabank Employees Association incorporated the plan into the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for rank-and-file employees. Membership under the plan was automatic for all full-time regular and permanent officers and employees as of its effectivity date.
PNB notified Obusan by memorandum dated February 11, 2002 that her last day would be March 3, 2002, since she would reach age 60 on March 4, 2002. Obusan, then president of the PNB Supervisors and Officers Association, protested by correspondence and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice before the Labor Arbiter, asserting a vested right to retire at age 65 under civil service rules and alleging lack of consent to the new retirement plan.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Obusan’s complaint on April 25, 2003, upholding the validity of the PNB-RRP and reasoning that GSIS rules ceased to govern after privatization and that an employee can only avail of the retirement plan in effect at the time of retirement. Obusan appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which, in a resolution dated May 31, 2004, affirmed the Labor Arbiter; a motion for reconsideration was denied by NLRC resolution dated August 28, 2006. The NLRC treated the employee’s right as a vested interest in retirement funds but distinguished that this did not vest a right to a particular retirement age.
Obusan filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition in a Decision dated September 21, 2007, holding that the PNB-RRP’s lowering of the retirement age to 60 was not violative of Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended. The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 8, 2008. Obusan then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that PNB could not unilaterally lower the retirement age without violating Article 287 and that her employment severance was illegal dismissal and an infringement of security of tenure.
The CA decision and resolution were assailed before the Supreme Court; no separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed below the Court’s disposition other than notation of concurring justices in the final judgment.
Issues:
- Did PNB’s imposition of compulsory retirement at age 60 under the PNB-RRP violate Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended, when applied to petitioner who was hired while PNB was government-owned?
- Did petitioner have a vested right to retire at age 65 such that her compulsory retirement at 60 amounted to illegal dismissal or an unfair labor practice?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)