Title
Universal Robina Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 144978
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2002
Employees sought enhanced retirement benefits under RA 7641; SC ruled their certiorari petition timely, remanding for further proceedings due to retroactive procedural rule application.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 144978)

Facts:

Universal Robina Corporation, and/or Lance Y. Gokongwei v. Court of Appeals, National, Labor Relations Commission, Carlos C. Ygana, Liborio Villaflor and Ronaldo Cardinales, G.R. No. 144978, January 15, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.

Respondents Carlos C. Ygana, Liborio Villaflor and Ronaldo Cardinales were employees of CFC Corporation, an affiliate of petitioner Universal Robina Corporation. Upon retiring at age 60 they received retirement benefits under their employer’s plan equivalent to one-half month pay per year of service. After enactment of Republic Act No. 7641 (January 7, 1993), which enlarged private‑sector retirement benefits, respondents filed a consolidated complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) asserting retroactive entitlement to the increased benefits.

Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio rendered a decision on January 15, 1999 in favor of respondents, ordering monetary awards to each. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC on February 26, 1999. The NLRC issued a resolution affirming the labor arbiter on September 30, 1999; petitioners received a copy on November 11, 1999 and filed a motion for reconsideration on November 15, 1999. The NLRC denied the motion by resolution dated December 29, 1999; petitioners received that denial on March 14, 2000.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Court of Appeals on May 15, 2000. On May 18, 2000 the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) dismissed the petition as filed out of time; petitioners received a copy of that dismissal on June 23, 2000. The CA later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on August 21, 2000. Petitioners then brought the present Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court, contending the CA erred in ...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Was the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 58695 dismissible as filed out of time...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.