G.R. No. 148542 - Odchimar Gerlach vs. Reuters Limited Phils.

On February 15, 1982, respondent Reuters Limited, Phils., employed Marilyn Odchimar Gerlach as its local correspondent in the Philippines.
On October 1, 1983, Reuters implemented a local Retirement Benefit Plan covering Philippine-hired employees.
Although employee participation was voluntary for contributions, petitioner was automatically covered by the Plan but opted not to contribute financially.

Prior to her departure, she was informed by Reuters’ Eastern Region Staff Manager, Rachel Addison, that although she would be assigned overseas, her home base would remain in Manila.
Her compensation was adjusted: she would receive a Singapore salary, and her Philippine salary would be replaced by a notional Philippine salary for the purpose of computing retirement contributions.

Subsequent correspondence, including a December 7, 1983 letter, clarified that despite being abroad and not joining the Singaporean Central Provident Fund, she was to be included in the Retirement Benefit Plan on a notional salary basis.
Petitioner continued to be reassigned overseas, including to Hong Kong (March 26–June 4, 1986) and Sri Lanka (from July 1986), with corresponding adjustments in both her actual and notional salaries as communicated through letters by management.
While in Sri Lanka, her notional peso salary was increased on more than one occasion.
In October 1988, petitioner was directed to return to Manila, but she requested an alternative assignment abroad. Due to worldwide personnel reductions, her request was denied; subsequently, she obtained a 14-month study leave without pay, effective January 1, 1989, until March 1, 1990.
Petitioner eventually resigned on May 20, 1990, and on March 1, 1991, she received retirement benefits computed by the trustee bank based on her notional salary, which she later contested.

Petitioner questioned the computation of her retirement benefits, contending that benefits should be based on her higher actual overseas salary rather than on the notional Philippine salary.
She also claimed entitlement to a disturbance grant (or resettlement allowance), arguing that her remuneration during overseas assignments would warrant a higher basis for computation.
In response, Reuters maintained that the notional salary was clearly communicated from the outset and was a standard practice in computing company contributions under the Plan.
A reply dated October 25, 1991, from respondent’s Manila Office Manager detailed:

Adjustments made to the computation of benefits (including a correction for an increase in the final salary by 15%).
Acknowledgment that a resettlement allowance was due, with a recommended payment at the then-current rate in peso equivalent.

Petitioner filed a money claim with the Office of the Labor Arbiter, NCR, leading to the first decision on March 28, 1994, awarding additional retirement benefits based on her actual overseas salary, a disturbance grant, and attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the NLRC set aside the first decision and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for a full trial on the merits.
A subsequent decision on July 31, 1996, by the Labor Arbiter reiterated the awards of the first decision.
The NLRC, on May 30, 1997, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit, although it was modified to grant the disturbance (resettlement) and disturbance allowance.
Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration by both parties; while her motion was granted by the NLRC, respondent’s motion was denied later.
The controversy reached the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. On September 29, 2000, the Court of Appeals reinstated the NLRC decision (dismissal of the additional retirement benefits claim) except for awarding the disturbance/resettlement grant.
Petitioner ascribed three assignments of error to the Court of Appeals when the case was elevated on certiorari to this Court.

Whether the computation of petitioner’s retirement benefits under Reuters’ Retirement Benefit Plan should be based on her actual overseas salary or on the notional Philippine salary which had been communicated to her upon assignment abroad.

Whether petitioner is entitled to additional compensation in the form of a disturbance or resettlement grant, notwithstanding the adjustments made to her retirement benefits’ computation.

Whether the prior decisions, including those of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, were subject to error given the disputes on factual determinations and timeliness of appeals, and if the Court of Appeals erred in modifying or overturning such decisions.