G.R. No. 185346 - Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Lazaro

Two consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 were filed by Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank and Miguelito M. Lazaro.
Both petitions challenge the Court of Appeals' decisions regarding Lazaro's monetary claims for salary differential, attorney's fees, and profit sharing.
The appellate court ruled against Lazaro on most claims but granted him seven years of retirement differential pay during the bank's liquidation.

Lazaro began his employment with Banco Filipino on February 1, 1968, and was promoted to assistant manager until the bank's closure on January 25, 1985.
He was reemployed in 1992 and continued until his retirement on December 1, 1995, after which he received retirement benefits based on a monthly salary of P38,000.
Lazaro claimed his service should be credited as 27 years and 10 months, and he sought an increase in his retirement pay base to P50,000, along with attorney's fees and profit sharing.

Banco Filipino contended that Lazaro's service should only account for 20 years and 7 months due to the bank's closure.
The bank denied the increase in retirement pay, asserting Lazaro was not entitled to the December 1995 salary increase as he had already resigned.
Banco Filipino also argued that Lazaro was not entitled to attorney's fees or profit shares without Monetary Board approval.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Banco Filipino, denying all of Lazaro's claims.
The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Lazaro appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the decision to grant him retirement pay differential but upheld the denial of attorney's fees and profit shares.

The Court of Appeals included the seven years of liquidation in Lazaro's retirement pay calculation, stating that the bank could not deny the work performed during that period.
The appellate court dismissed Lazaro's claims for attorney's fees and profit shares, finding he had already been compensated.

Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the Court of Appeals.
Banco Filipino contested the inclusion of the liquidation period, while Lazaro reiterated his claims for a higher salary base and additional compensation.

Banco Filipino's argument to exclude the liquidation period was rejected, as banks under liquidation retain legal personality and can collect debts.
The Court clarified that the previous ruling cited by Banco Filipino did not categorically exclude the liquidation period from service length.
Lazaro's request for a higher retirement pay base was denied, as the applicable rules specified his final salary as P38,000.

Lazaro's request to round off his service length to 28 years was denied, as the governing rules did not provide for such a rounding scheme.
The Court emphasized that the retirement benefits provided by the bank were more favorable than those mandated by law.

Lazaro failed to establish a legal basis for receiving additional attorney's fees, as his foreclosure duties were part of his official responsibilities.
The Court upheld the finding that Lazaro had received full payment of profit sha...continue reading