Case Digest (G.R. No. 144483)
Facts:
Sta. Catalina College and Sr. Loreta Oranza v. National Labor Relations Commission and Hilaria G. Tercero, G.R. No. 144483, November 19, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Sta. Catalina College (the school) and its former directress Sr. Loreta Oranza; respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and private respondent Hilaria G. Tercero (Hilaria). Hilaria was first hired by the school in June 1955 as an elementary school teacher. In 1970 she was granted a one‑year leave without pay for her mother's illness; that leave expired in 1971 and she did not request an extension or notify the school of her intentions. Hilaria worked elsewhere during the intervening years (San Pedro Parochial School in 1980–1981 and Liceo de San Pedro in 1981–1982). She reapplied and was rehired by Sta. Catalina College in 1982 at a monthly salary noted in the record.
On March 22, 1997 the school presented Hilaria a plaque “for thirty years of service” and gave her P12,000 as gratuity. She reached compulsory retirement age of 65 on May 31, 1997 and retired under Article 287 of the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7641. The school computed retirement benefits based only on 15 years’ service (1982–1997) totaling P59,038.35, deducted P28,853.09 (employer’s PERAA contribution already received) and deducted the P12,000 gratuity, leaving P18,185.26.
Hilaria contended she rendered thirty years’ service (1955–1970 and 1982–1997) and that the gratuity should not be deducted; she filed a complaint for nonpayment of retirement benefits before the NLRC Regional Arbitration (NLRC Case No. RAB‑IV‑3‑9860). The Labor Arbiter (October 30, 1998) awarded only P18,185.26. The NLRC (April 27, 1999) set aside that decision and ordered payment of P85,287.72 (computed on 29 years less PERAA contribution but refusing to deduct the gratuity). Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the NLRC by decision dated April 28, 2000, finding that petitioners had not proven abandonment and that the school’s plaque and gratuity, and lack of separation pay, supported continuity of service. The CA de...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did private respondent Hilaria G. Tercero abandon her employment in 1971 so that her service from 1955 to 1970 should be excluded from the computation of retirement benefits?
- Was the school required to serve written notice under Sec. 2, Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (or under the Termination Pay Law, R.A. 1052 as amended) before treating Hilaria as separated?
- Should the P12,000 gratuity awarded to Hilaria be deducted from retirement benefits?
- What is the correct computation of Hilaria’s retirement benefits and the amount...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)