Title
Supreme Court
Youngbros Parts Centre, Inc. vs. Taduran
Case
G.R. No. 232527
Decision Date
Jul 7, 2021
Employee disputes retirement terms, claims illegal dismissal; Supreme Court rules voluntary retirement under Labor Code, estops further claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232527)

Antecedent Facts

Uldarico Taduran began his employment with Youngbros Parts Centre, Inc. in February 1972 and was promoted to Manager in 1990. In September 2011, the petitioners offered him a retirement package in recognition of his long service, contingent on his response within 48 hours. After some communication regarding the financial details, including cash advances Taduran owed to the company, the petitioners offered a financial assistance package instead of full retirement pay.

Legal Complaints Initiated

Taduran ultimately decided to accept the retirement package, though disputes arose regarding the computation of his retirement benefits, leading him to file a complaint for unpaid wages and benefits in December 2011. Initially, the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, granting him substantial compensation.

Appeals and NLRC Rulings

The petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which modified the ruling by adjusting the financial awards in favor of the petitioners and later denied both parties’ motions for reconsideration. The respondent then filed a separate complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that he was barred from reporting to work, believing he had not effectively retired.

Procedural Dismissals and Subsequent Actions

Labor Arbiter Lilia S. Savari dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction. Following this, while the earlier NLRC decision became final, Taduran filed for enforcement of the monetary awards, which were eventually settled by the petitioners.

Central Legal Issues

The case centers on whether the acceptance of retirement benefits by the respondent constituted a voluntary severance of the employment relationship and if this barred him from subsequently claiming illegal dismissal. The identification of the retirement agreement as a bilateral affair is particularly significant here, as it hinges on mutual consent.

Court’s Ruling on Dismissal and Retirement Benefits

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent’s actions indicated a clear intention to retire, thus justifying the belief that he voluntarily severed ties with his employer. The Court reiterated that accepting retirement benefits without con

...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.