Title
Cipriano vs. San Miguel Corporation
Case
G.R. No. L-24774
Decision Date
Aug 21, 1968
Employee retired due to health, received retirement benefits under union plan; court ruled benefits replaced separation pay under law, denying additional claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 238762)

Employment History and Retirement Notice

Raul Cipriano was initially employed by San Miguel Corporation as an apprentice salesman on September 1, 1953, with a starting salary of P215. He progressed to a regular salesman by March 1, 1954, receiving a monthly salary of P240. Over the course of his employment, his salary experienced several increments, reaching P290 by January 1, 1963, with additional average monthly commissions of P367.11. On April 21, 1964, Cipriano was notified that he could no longer perform his job due to medical reasons, leading to his retirement effective April 17, 1964.

Retirement Benefits

Cipriano was a member of the San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union, which had a Health, Welfare, and Retirement Plan in place since February 20, 1963. According to Section 2 of Article VIII of this plan, retiring employees were entitled to benefits calculated as one month's guaranteed basic compensation for each year of service. Cipriano received a total of P2,292.28 in retirement benefits based on his years of service.

Legal Claims and Court Proceedings

Subsequent to receiving his retirement benefits, Cipriano filed a claim for separation pay in accordance with Republic Act No. 1052, as amended by Republic Act No. 1787, citing the Termination Pay Law. When San Miguel Corporation did not comply with his demand, he initiated legal proceedings on December 1, 1964, seeking to recover separation pay, as well as moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Court Decision and Reasoning

The Court of First Instance dismissed Cipriano's complaint, concluding that the retirement benefits he received under the Health, Welfare, and Retirement Plan were in lieu of the termination pay he sought. The court emphasized that Cipriano's entitlement to benefits was governed by the terms of the collective agreement which stated that employees separated for reasons other than misconduct or voluntary resignation would receive either the retirement benefits or the severance pay provided by law, whichever amount was greater.

Interpretation of Employment Agreement

The court interpreted the agreement's language strictly, highlighting that the use of "either" and "or" indicated that Cipriano was only entitled to one form of benefit, not both simultaneously. The phrase "whichever is the greater amount" further substantiated t

...continue reading

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.