Facts:
Januaria A. Rivera commenced employment with United Laboratories, Inc. (UNILAB) on April 7, 1958. After completing 30 years of service in 1988, she was retired by UNILAB per the terms of its retirement plan. Her retirement package totaled P1,047,331.33 from various trust funds. However, Rivera continued to work at UNILAB, eventually becoming Assistant Vice-President in 1989 until the end of 1992, for which she was promoted and received a salary increase.
UNILAB amended its retirement plan in December 1992, increasing retirement benefits and adjusting the retirement date to 30 days after an employee reaches the age of 60. Rivera claimed she was entitled to the higher retirement benefits accorded by the amended plan. UNILAB denied this, arguing that the previous plan formula applied as Rivera was retired in 1988.
Rivera sought unpaid retirement pay differential through legal correspondence but was rebuffed. Consequently, she filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in August 1996. Her claim was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, and on appeal, the NLRC affirmed the dismissal. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled in her favor and remanded the case for hearing on the merits. UNILAB’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the current Supreme Court (SC) petition.
Issues:
1. Whether Rivera’s claim for additional retirement benefits had prescribed.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision to remand the case to the Labor Arbiter for hearing on the merits.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court found that Rivera’s claim did not prescribe and could proceed based on the interruption by her extrajudicial demand. However, the Court also concluded that Rivera did not qualify for retirement benefits under the Retirement Pay Law since her renewed work did not come with the benefit of any retirement plan coverage. The Court denied Rivera’s petition, stating that she had already received just compensation under the retirement plan in effect during her mandatory retirement in 1988 and was not eligible for additional retirement benefits under UNILAB’s amended plan or the Retirement Pay Law.
Doctrine:
The case established that the prescriptive period for money claims in labor cases can be interrupted by extrajudicial demand as per Article 1155 of the Civil Code. The Court also reiterated principles regarding the treatment of retirement as a termination of employer-employee relations and the effects of amendments to retirement plans.
Class Notes:
– Retirement, as a legal concept, signifies the cessation of employment upon reaching retirement age as stipulated in company policy or the applicable retirement plan.
– The Retirement Pay Law requires at least five years of service for an employee to be eligible for retirement benefits, unless there is a more favorable agreement or retirement plan.
– Money claims arising from employer-employee relations are subject to a prescriptive period of three years from the time the cause of action accrued, as per Article 291 of the Labor Code, which may be interrupted by extrajudicial demand (Article 1155 of the Civil Code).
Historical Background:
The legal and policy context during which Rivera filed her claim included then-existing laws, company policies, and judicial precedents. Prior to the enactment of the Retirement Pay Law (R.A. 7641) in December 1992, mandatory retirement and associated benefits were set based on collective bargaining or other employment contracts. Rivera’s claims straddled these changes, highlighting evolving legislative and judicial attitudes towards retirement benefits and labor relations.
Leave a Reply