G.R. No. 209516 - Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, 9th Division

Petitioner Angelina Villanueva, a lawyer and certified public accountant, was employed by the University of the East (UE) as a regular full-time faculty member in the College of Business Administration for 23 years.
In 1993, after 23 years of service, she optionally retired from her regular faculty position.
Immediately after her optional retirement, she was reengaged by UE as College Secretary in the College of Law and later promoted to Associate Dean.
During her tenure as College Secretary and Associate Dean, she also served as a part-time lecturer in the College of Law on a semester-to-semester basis, with a maximum teaching load of 12 units per semester.
Her contracts as part-time lecturer expressly stipulated that she was not entitled to the benefits given to regular faculty members, including retirement gratuity, as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between UE and the UE Faculty Association.

In 2005, petitioner compulsorily retired as Associate Dean after reaching 65 years of age.
UE computed her retirement benefits based on the current hourly rate of a regular faculty member in the College of Business Administration (PHP 224.51) which yielded a total of PHP 627,279.79; this amount was duly paid to her.
Dissatisfied with the computed amount, petitioner sought a re-computation based on the higher hourly rate (PHP 532.35) of a regular faculty member in the College of Law, which would have resulted in a retirement differential pay of PHP 1,016,610.84.

UE justified its computation by relying on its "One Retirement Policy" embodied in Board Resolution No. 75-8-86.
This board resolution mandates that for faculty members who have optionally retired and are later appointed to administrative positions, retirement benefits are computed on either:

According to the policy, since the current rate of a regular faculty member in the College of Business Administration resulted in higher benefits than the rate as an Associate Dean (her position at the time of retirement), that rate should be applied.
Petitioner contrarily argued that her rate as a regular College of Law faculty member should be used, asserting that she met the criteria under the four-fold test and relying on the ruling in St. Theresita’s Academy.

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of petitioner, finding that her retirement benefits had been incorrectly computed and ordering UE to pay her the differential amount along with moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, dismissing the complaint by holding that:

Following her optional retirement from the regular faculty, petitioner's main connection to UE was through her administrative roles.
Her part-time teaching appointment was contractual and did not entitle her to retirement benefits as a regular faculty member.
The computation using the current rate of a regular faculty member in the College of Business Administration was proper under the board resolution.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the NLRC decision. The appellate court affirmed that:

Retirement pay must be computed as provided in Board Resolution No. 75-8-86.
The rate applicable is determined by which of the two computations (teaching or administrative) results in higher benefits, which in this case was the rate for a college faculty member in the College of Business Administration.

Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari, which was ultimately dismissed.

Petitioner contended that her pay should be based on her claim of being a regular faculty member in the College of Law, citing St. Theresita’s Academy on the regularization of re-employed retirees.
She argued that using her rate as an Associate Dean was contrary to the board resolution that mandated the computation be based on the benefits prevailing at the time of retirement.
She asserted that UE acted in bad faith by compelling her retirement from the College of Business Administration and by delaying the resolution of her claim for differential retirement benefits.
Additionally, petitioner raised an issue on the NLRC’s handling of UE’s surety bond, which she argued should have resulted in dismissal of UE’s appeal due to the bond’s limited effectivity period.

Whether the appellate court erred in sustaining the NLRC’s decision under a Petition for Certiorari when a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy (i.e. a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45) was available.
Whether petitioner’s resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari was proper despite the availability of an appeal.

Whether the computation of petitioner’s retirement benefit should be based on her rate as a regular College of Law faculty member or on the rate of a regular faculty member in the College of Business Administration (or as an administrative official).
Whether UE’s application of its One Retirement Policy, as contained in Board Resolution No. 75-8-86, is valid and should preclude the computation based on petitioner’s alternative claim.

Whether the contractual stipulations, which excluded part-time lecturers from receiving the same retirement benefits as regular faculty members, bind petitioner’s claim.
Whether the ruling in St. Theresita’s Academy, which discusses the regularization of re-employed retirees, is applicable given the distinct factual scenario in this case.
The impact of UE’s procedural lapse in submitting a surety bond with effectivity limited to one year on the merits of the case.