Case Digest (G.R. No. 148542)
Facts:
Marilyn Odchimar Gerlach v. Reuters Limited, Phils., G.R. No. 148542, January 17, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Marilyn Odchimar Gerlach was hired by respondent Reuters Limited, Phils. (Reuters) on February 15, 1982 as a local correspondent. On October 1, 1983 Reuters implemented a locally administered Retirement Benefit Plan (the Plan), funded by the company with an option for employee contributions; petitioner was covered automatically but opted not to contribute.
Beginning January 23, 1984, Reuters assigned petitioner to overseas postings (Singapore, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka) while informing her by written communications that her "home base" remained Manila and that for retirement-plan purposes she would retain a specified "notional Philippine salary." Reuters provided notional salary figures (e.g., P5,980; later adjusted to P6,900 and ultimately to P12,600) and explained that she should not join host-country provident funds because the Philippines remained her home base.
Petitioner remained on overseas assignments through the mid-1980s, took an approved leave without pay (January 1, 1989–March 1, 1990), and resigned on May 20, 1990. On March 1, 1991 she received retirement benefits of P79,228.04 computed by the trustee bank based on her notional Philippine salary; she disputed the amount and claimed her benefit should be computed on her higher actual overseas salary and that she was entitled to a disturbance/resettlement grant.
Petitioner filed a money claim with the Office of the Labor Arbiter (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-05002-92). On March 28, 1994 the Labor Arbiter awarded additional retirement benefits (P436,000, computed on actual foreign salary), a disturbance grant (Stg 1,750 or peso equivalent), and attorney’s fees. The NLRC on August 31, 1994 set aside that award and remanded for trial. On July 31, 1996 the Labor Arbiter again awarded the same amounts. The NLRC on May 30, 1997 reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint; upon motion for reconsideration the NLRC reversed itself on August 29, 1997 and dismissed Reuters’ appeal — an Order denying Reuters’ motion for reconsideration followed on January 15, 1998.
Reuters filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court which, pursuant to St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, referred the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 51495, issued a Decision on September 29, 2000 reinstating the NLRC’s May 30, 1997 dismissal (bu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, are the issues raised reviewable by the Supreme Court as questions of law rather than questions of fact?
- Should petitioner’s retirement benefits under the company’s voluntary retirement plan be computed on her actual salary abroad or on the notional Philippine salary communicated by the employer?
- Is petitioner entitled to a disturbance/resettlement gra...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)