Title
Perez vs. Comparts Industries, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 197557
Decision Date
Oct 5, 2016
Employee denied optional retirement benefits despite eligibility; Supreme Court upheld employer's denial, citing financial constraints and lack of company practice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197557)

Factual Background

Maureen P. Perez commenced her employment with Comparts Industries, Inc. on July 16, 1988, attaining regular status by September 1, 1988. She ascended to the position of Marketing Manager by 1998, a role she held until her resignation on January 10, 2009. CII instituted a retirement program for managerial employees under the "Comparts Industries, Inc. Employees Retirement Plan" effective June 1, 1999, and amended January 25, 2001. The retirement plan included provisions for optional or early retirement.

Application for Optional Retirement

In November 2007, Perez expressed her intent to avail herself of the optional retirement program, asserting eligibility, although her application was denied. While she was on vacation in the United States in January 2008, she reapplied, which was also rejected based on CII's asserted financial crisis. Perez later sought reconsideration and requested inclusion in a planned retrenchment, yet her appeals continued to be denied. In December 2008, she submitted a final application for optional retirement effective January 10, 2009, citing personal reasons related to family health. CII offered her a gratuity of PHP 100,000.00, which she refused.

Grounds for Denial

CII formally accepted Perez's resignation, concomitantly denying her claim for optional retirement benefits on several grounds: lack of a policy on optional retirement benefits, financial hardship, absence of legal entitlement for voluntarily resigning employees to separation pay, and the inapplicability of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) applicable only to rank-and-file employees.

NLRC Ruling

In response to CII's denial, Perez filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) alleging discrimination, seeking either optional retirement benefits under the retirement plan or separation benefits under the CBA. The NLRC-RAB favored Perez, awarding her PHP 422,195.84 in optional retirement benefits, based on her twenty years of service, and referencing instances of other managerial employees receiving separation benefits.

Appeal and Reversal

CII appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the initial ruling and dismissed Perez's complaint. The NLRC based its decision on various grounds, primarily noting CII's prerogative under the retirement plan to grant or deny applications for optional retirement. The Commission emphasized that many managerial employees who received benefits did so prior to the establishment of the retirement plan.

Court of Appeals Decision

Subsequently, Perez sought a review of the NLRC's decision in the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court dismissed her petition and upheld the NLRC's findings, asserting that Perez, as a managerial employee under the retirement plan, required CII's consent for optional retirement. The court cited relevant jurisprudence, notably illustrating that such benefits were not a right but rather a management prerogative.

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling, re

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.