Case Digest (G.R. No. 156644)
Facts:
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) and/or Renato Cabati, as Manager v. Agripino Caballeda and Alejandro Cadalin, G.R. No. 156644, July 28, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.URSUMCO is a domestic sugar-milling corporation; Renato Cabati was its manager. Agripino Caballeda worked as a welder for URSUMCO from March 1989 until June 23, 1997 (P124/day). Alejandro Cadalin was a crane operator from 1976 until June 15, 1997 (P209.30/day). On April 24, 1991, URSUMCO’s president issued a company Memorandum providing for compulsory retirement at age 60 (with procedures for notices and conversion of leave credits to cash). On December 9, 1992 R.A. No. 7641 was enacted (amending Art. 287, Labor Code) and took effect January 7, 1993; on April 29, 1993 URSUMCO and the National Federation of Labor (NFL) executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) whose Article XV provided that retirement benefits shall be “in accordance with law.”
After they reached age 60, both respondents were separated: Agripino was alleged to have been forced to retire June 24, 1997 and accepted separation pay and applied for SSS retirement; Alejandro applied for retirement May 28, 1997, received retirement benefits July 23, 1997 and executed a quitclaim. Agripino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter (LA) on August 6, 1997; Alejandro filed a similar complaint on August 26, 1997, also contesting underpayment of retirement benefits.
The LA (Dumaguete City) rendered judgment on September 30, 1998 declaring respondents illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement and awarding backwages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, in its January 27, 2000 Decision (NLRC Case No. V-000080-99), set aside and vacated the LA decision, dismissed the illegal dismissal complaints, and ordered payment of retirement benefits recomputed under Art. 287 (with detailed computations), a disposition affirmed by NLRC Resolution of May 22, 2000 denying reconsideration.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 59552) in a September 11, 2002 Decision held that URSUMCO illegally dismissed respondents by unilaterally imposing compulsory retirement at age 60, treated the retirements as involuntary and equivalent to discharge, but upheld the NLRC’s computation of retirement differentials; it ordered payment of retirement differentials and backwages through 2002. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration to the CA was denied by resolution dated January 8, 2003.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether this Court may re-examine the factual finding that Agripino was a seasonal/project employee (a question of fact) under a Rule 45 petition.
- Whether R.A. No. 7641 may be given retroactive effect to affect retirement benefits for employment relationships existing when the law took effect.
- Whether the respondents voluntarily retired upon turning 60, or were forced to retire (i.e., whether their separation amounted to illegal dismissal).
- Whether the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of retirement differen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)