G.R. No. 54244 - San Miguel Corporation vs. Javate, Jr.

Private respondent Ernesto Javate, Jr. was a casual employee of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) assigned to its B-Meg warehouse in San Miguel, Bulacan.
On 21 June 1974, Javate was involved in an accident and was initially hospitalized at Figueroa Emergency Hospital in Gapan, Nueva Ecija. He was later transferred to Makati Medical Center.
On 16 August 1974, Javate was discharged from the hospital and was certified by his attending physician as fit to resume work the following day, 17 August 1974.

Javate was on sick leave for a total of 56 days.
On 16 August 1974, Javate’s supervisor, Severino Azcarraga, attempted to bring him back to work, but they were unable to reach San Miguel, Bulacan, due to impassable roads caused by Typhoon "Norming."
To avoid being declared absent without leave, Javate, with his supervisor’s assistance, filed an application for 11 days of vacation leave with pay from 17 August 1974 to 27 August 1974. However, the application was disapproved because it was not filed six days prior to its effectivity, as required by SMC’s rules.
On 28 August 1974, Javate reported for work and was paid P3.20 for the day. He was informed that a nurse had erroneously indicated in his leave certificate that he was still under treatment as of 17 August 1974. This error was corrected to reflect his fitness to return to work on that date.
On the same day, Javate applied for an additional 15 days of vacation leave without pay from 29 August 1974 to 12 September 1974 to repair his typhoon-damaged house. This application was also disapproved for violating the six-day filing requirement, and his absences were charged to his sick leave benefits.

On 1 September 1974, SMC "compulsorily retired" Javate, citing the exhaustion of his sick leave benefits and his alleged unfitness to return to work under the company’s Health, Welfare, and Retirement Plan.
The relevant provision of the plan stated that a permanent worker who exhausts all sick leave benefits and is not certified by the company physician as fit to return to work may be compulsorily retired.

On 25 September 1975, Javate filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, challenging his compulsory retirement as illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Javate, ordering his reinstatement with one year of back wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Secretary of Labor affirmed this decision.
SMC filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Department of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the company’s retirement plan and rules.

Fitness to Work: The Court deferred to the factual findings of the labor tribunals, which concluded that Javate was fit to return to work based on the evidence presented. Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally binding if supported by substantial evidence.
Burden of Proof: SMC, as the employer, had the burden to prove that Javate was unfit to work under the retirement plan. It failed to discharge this burden.
Illegal Dismissal: Javate’s separation was deemed a dismissal, not a retirement, and thus required prior clearance from the Department of Labor.
Estoppel: Acceptance of retirement benefits does not bar an employee from contesting the legality of dismissal, especially when the employee was forced to retire.