Title
Supreme Court
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, 9th Division
Case
G.R. No. 209516
Decision Date
Jan 17, 2023
A retired UE faculty member sought higher retirement pay based on College of Law rates, but the Supreme Court upheld UE’s One Retirement Policy, dismissing her claim due to procedural lapses and binding contractual terms.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209516)

Background

Angelina Villanueva, a lawyer and certified public accountant, began her tenure with UE in 1970 and opted to retire after 23 years in 1993. Post-retirement, she was appointed as College Secretary and then Associate Dean of the College of Law while also teaching as a part-time lecturer. Her part-time contracts contained terms that disqualified her from receiving regular faculty benefits, including retirement gratuity.

Facts of the Case

In 2005, upon her compulsory retirement at 65 as Associate Dean, Villanueva sought to compute her retirement based on her full-time faculty pay rate from her previous employment, arguing that it should reflect her role in the College of Law rather than the College of Business Administration where she had formerly served as a full-time faculty member. UE denied her differential retirement pay, citing their "One Retirement Policy," which dictates that retirement benefits be calculated based on whichever role provides greater benefits—faculty or administrative—at the rate prevailing during retirement.

Labor Arbiter Ruling

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Villanueva, emphasizing that her teaching position should dictate her retirement pay. She ordered UE to pay the differential amount of PHP 1,016,610.84 and additional damages. The Arbiter maintained that Villanueva’s service in the College of Law warranted consideration under the university's retirement policy.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Ruling

The NLRC overturned the Arbiter's decision, asserting that after her retirement from the College of Business Administration, Villanueva's connection to the university was primarily through her administrative roles. The NLRC emphasized the contractual nature of her teaching in the College of Law and maintained that the computation based on the College of Business Administration reflected a greater benefit.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC's stance, confirming that Villanueva’s retirement pay was correctly calculated per the practice of utilizing the current hourly rate of a faculty member from the College of Business Administration. The appellate court dismissed her claims that her position as a part-time lecturer necessitated inclusion in the retirement computation.

Issues Presented

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellate court erred in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of Villanueva's complaint.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed Villanueva’s petition, citing procedural deficiencies in her approach by opting for certiorari when an ordinary appeal was available. Additionally, the Court r

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.