Case Summary (G.R. No. 87051)
Background of Employment and Claims
Casimira B. Pedrosa was employed by Esco Hale Shoe Company, Inc. for a total of forty-nine years, beginning in 1937, where she worked her way up from a shoe box maker to a heel pad attacher until her retirement. In 1982, she reached the age of sixty-five and formally retired, receiving retirement benefits from the Social Security System (SSS). However, she continued to work with the petitioner until November 1, 1986, when she was removed from her regular work schedule. Following her exclusion, she demanded either her retirement or separation pay, but the petitioners denied these claims.
Legal Proceedings Initiated
On February 12, 1987, following the refusal to comply with her demands, Pedrosa filed a complaint against the petitioners for violations of Presidential Decree No. 851 (which pertains to the 13th month pay) and sought payment for her retirement benefits and other claims. The petitioners contended that the complaint was unfounded, arguing that Pedrosa had already effectively retired in 1982 and that they had no collective bargaining agreement or retirement plan, thus all retirement benefits could only be sourced from the SSS.
Decision by Labor Arbiter
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Casimira B. Pedrosa, ordering Esco Hale Shoe Company, Inc. to pay her a total of P23,534.83. This amount included her 13th month pay for 1986, unpaid vacation/sick leave benefits, and retirement benefits, emphasizing that the employers' obligation to pay retirement benefits is separate from those provided by the SSS. The Arbiter’s decision was backed by Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 1, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
Affirmation by National Labor Relations Commission
The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, reinforcing that Pedrosa was entitled to the claims she made. The Commission pointed out the employer's failure to sufficiently address the issue regarding payment of the 13th month pay.
Petitioner's Arguments on Appeal
In their petition for review, the petitioners argued that granting retirement benefits a second time was unjustifiable, asserting that Pedrosa was a pensioner of the SSS and that they had no applicable retirement plan that would warrant additional claims. They maintained that the rules invoked did not apply due to the absence of a collective bargaining agreement.
Findings on Employment Duration and Wage Calculations
The court recognized the long tenure of Pedrosa, collaborating with the Labor Arbiter's calcul
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 87051)
Case Overview
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Division: Second Division
- G.R. No.: 87051
- Date of Decision: February 7, 1991
- Petitioners: Esco Hale Shoe Company, Inc. and Elmer H. Cobb
- Respondents: The National Labor Relations Commission, Casimira B. Pedrosa, Hon. Nieves V. De Castro, Deputy Sheriff Rene A. Masilungan, and Allied Banking Corporation
Background of the Case
- Employment History: Private respondent Casimira B. Pedrosa worked for Esco Hale Shoe Company for 49 years, starting in 1937 as a shoebox maker and later as a heel pad attacher until 1986.
- Retirement Application: In 1982, upon reaching 65 years of age, Pedrosa applied for retirement with the Social Security Commission (SSC) and received retirement benefits.
- Continued Employment: Despite her retirement, she continued to work until November 1, 1986, when she was excluded from the regular work schedule.
- Demand for Retirement/Separation Pay: After exclusion, Pedrosa demanded her retirement and/or separation pay, which the petitioner refused, prompting her to file a complaint on February 12, 1987.
Legal Proceedings and Claims
- Complaint Filed: Pedrosa filed a complaint against the petitioner for violation of PD 851, seeking retirement benefits, separation pay, and other claims.
- Petitioner's Defense: Esco Hale Shoe Company argued:
- The complaint was based on Pedrosa’s unfounded demand for renewed retirement.
- The company had no separate retirement or private benefit plan, and all employees were under SSC coverage.
- Pe