G.R. No. 176625 - Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Lozada, Sr.

Respondent, Uldarico I. Taduran, began work with petitioners in February 1972 as a storekeeper and was promoted to Manager in 1990, remaining in that position.
On September 14, 2011, petitioner Laurence Llave, Manager of Youngbros Parts Centre, Inc., offered respondent a retirement package as a gesture of management appreciation in light of his 39 years of continuous service. The offer, however, required an answer within 48 hours of notice.

Respondent sought further clarification regarding the details of the retirement package. Petitioners informed him that he was entitled to receive P511,875.99 as retirement pay.
It was noted that respondent had cash advances totaling P883,395.00 representing unremitted accumulated sales, which, after adjustment, theoretically left an outstanding balance of P371,520.00. Petitioners, however, waived their right to collect these balances and instead offered a financial assistance amounting to P316,605.00.
A memorandum dated October 7, 2011, stated that if respondent declined the retirement package, he would then be subject to the company policies applicable to all employees.
On November 9, 2011, respondent communicated his decision to accept the retirement package—subject to a proper computation—claiming that his monthly compensation was P48,000.00, a figure he later used in his counter-computation for his retirement pay benefit.
On November 23, 2011, petitioners formally denied respondent’s counter-offer. They maintained that his cash advances totaled P907,745.00 but increased the retirement package offer to P1,200,000.00, which, after deducting the advances, would result in a retirement pay of P292,255.00.

On December 1, 2011, respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter seeking non-payment of various remuneration items including salary, overtime, holiday pay, service benefits, and retirement benefits. This case was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 12-17894-11.
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated September 6, 2012, ruled in favor of respondent by awarding him salary (computed from September 2011 until his last day of employment), 13th month pay, retirement benefits calculated from his hiring date in February 1972 until December 1, 2011, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. On June 28, 2013, the NLRC modified the award by deleting the salary and 13th month pay claims, instead computing the retirement pay based on a lower established salary of P17,200.00 from February 1972 up to December 2011—with attorney’s fees set at 10% of the total award.
Both parties filed motions for reconsideration before the NLRC, but these were denied in the NLRC Resolution dated July 31, 2013.

Also on July 31, 2013, respondent initiated an illegal dismissal complaint, alleging that he was barred from further reporting to work on July 19, 2013. He asserted that:

He was only 62 years old at the time and thus had not yet reached the normal retirement age;
He had not received the retirement pay calculated by the NLRC; and
The NLRC decision awarding retirement benefits had not yet attained finality.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the illegal dismissal complaint on grounds of forum shopping. Respondent contended that the issues in his dismissal case were distinct from those in his retirement claim.
On October 21, 2013, Labor Arbiter Lilia S. Savari dismissed the illegal dismissal case for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent then appealed this dismissal to the NLRC.
Following the NLRC decision on June 28, 2013 becoming final, respondent moved to enforce the settlement of monetary awards. Petitioners voluntarily settled the monetary award, evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt dated December 23, 2013 amounting to P550,000.00.
Despite receiving the retirement benefits, respondent argued that such payment did not sever the employer-employee relationship because he did not voluntarily retire. Petitioners maintained that an agreement to retire had already been reached, notwithstanding deferred payment.

On May 29, 2014, the NLRC issued a Decision dismissing respondent’s appeal, effectively deeming that he had opted to retire under the applicable provision of Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7641.
An unsuccessful Motion for Reconsideration by respondent followed, prompting him to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a certiorari petition.
The CA, in its Decision dated December 9, 2016, reversed the NLRC ruling by holding that respondent had been illegally dismissed. The CA reasoned that:

The cause of action for illegal dismissal accrued on July 19, 2013, while an employer-employee relationship still existed;
The acceptance and subsequent settlement of retirement benefits did not estop his claim because the retirement agreement had not fully matured as a final, consensual severance of employment.

The CA remanded the case for proper computation of separation pay (equivalent to one month’s pay per year of service) and backwages covering the period from respondent’s termination until the finality of his retirement.

Petitioners argued that the CA erred procedurally by dismissing aspects of its certiorari petition for not complying with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court—which requires that the respondent’s copy of the petition be accompanied by plain copies of all documents attached to the original.
Citing the case of Duremdes v. Jorilla, the Court reiterated that while procedural rules are important, they must be applied in a way that secures, rather than obstructs, substantial justice.
The Court noted that technical deficiencies, particularly when a petitioner has substantially complied with the requirements, should not be cause for outright dismissal of a case.

Whether the instant petition for certiorari suffers from a formal defect by failing to accompany a plain copy of all documents attached to the original petition in compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in issuing its Resolution dated June 30, 2014 and its Decision dated May 29, 2014 in dismissing respondent’s claim.
Whether respondent’s acceptance and receipt of his retirement benefits on December 23, 2013 constituted a voluntary severance of the employer-employee relationship, thereby barring his claim for illegal dismissal and the associated separation pay and backwages.