RAUL CIPRIANO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Direct appeal, on
questions purely of law, from a deci­sion
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint,
without costs.

The pertinent facts have
been stipulated.  Plaintiff, Raul
Cipriano, was first employed, on September 1, 1953, as an apprentice salesman
of San Miguel Corporation, with a monthly salary of P215.  On March 1, 1954, he became a regular sales­man,
with a monthly salary of P240.  Owing to
regular promotions given from time to time to defendant’s employees, plain­tiff’s
salary was subsequently increased until it reached, on January 1, 1963, to P290
a month.  From the date last mentioned to
April 17, 1964, he, moreover, got an average commission of P367.11 a month.

On April 21, 1964,
plaintiff received a notice to the effect that, the medical department having
certified that he could no longer continue performing his functions as a
salesman, the defendant was constrained to retire him at the close of business
on April 17, 1964.  Plaintiff was then,
as he, had been for some time prior thereto, a member in good standing
of the San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union, which had with the defendant, an
agreement, dated February 20, 1963, establishing a “Health, Welfare and
Retirement Plan,” which was in force. 
Section 2 of Article VIII of said plan^[1]
provided for retirement benefits at the rate of “one (1) month’s
guaranteed basic compensation for each year of service.” Pursuant to this
provision, plaintiff got the total sum of P2,292.28, computed on the basis of
the compensation for one (1) month for each year of service rendered to the
defendant.  Subsequently, however,
plaintiff demanded payment of the separation pay prescribed in the Termination
Pay Law^[2]
and, upon failure of the defendant to heed the demand, or on December 1, 1964, he filed this action to recover said pay, as
well as moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

After appropriate
proceedings, the lower court rendered the appealed decision, dismissing
plaintiff’s complaint, upon the ground that the retirement benefits,
received by plaintiff under the aforementioned “Health, Welfare and
Retirement Plan”, are in lieu of the termination pay provided by law,
contrary to plaintiff’ s claim to the effect that this pay is not excluded by said benefits.

Plaintiff’s contention is manifestly devoid of merit.  His right to the benefits of the
aforementioned plan came into existence by virtue of the agreement between the
defendant and the labor union, of which plaintiff is a member.  Admit­tedly, said right is subject to the
limitations prescribed in the agreement, Article X of which reads:

“Regular employees who are separated from the service of the
company for any reason other than misconduct or voluntary resignation shall be
entitled to either 100% of the benefits provided in Section Article VIII
hereof, regardless of their length of service in the company or to the
severance pay provided by law, whichever is the greater amount.“

Pursuant thereto, plaintiff was entitled to “either”
the amount prescribed in the
plan “or” the “severance pay pro­vided by law, whichever
is the greater amount.” In other words, he had a right to one of the two benefits, not
to both, at the same time.  The
exclusion of one by the other is clearly deducible, not only from the terms
“either” and “or” used in the agreement, but, also, by the
qualifying phrase “whichever is the greater amount.” Indeed,
“whichever is the greater amount” would be immaterial, if the
retiring employee were entitled to both. 
Needless to say, the benefits under said plan – compensation for one (1) month for each year of
service – is bigger than the termination pay provided by law, which is limited
to one-half of the monthly compensation for every year of service.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against plaintiff-appellant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
“SEC. 2.  Amount of Benefits

“(a) For service rendered up to
December 31, 1955 – one (1) month’s
guaranteed basic compensation for each year of service based on the guaranteed
basic monthly compensation as of December 31, 1955;

“(b)
For service rendered from January 1, 1956 to December 31, 1962, one (1) month’s guaranteed basic
compensation for each year of service based on
the guaranteed basic monthly compensation then current.

“(c) For service rendered after
December 31, 1962 – One (1) month’s pay (as computed in
accordance with Section 4, Article
VII, of these rules) for each year of service based on the current
month’s pay.”

^[2]
Republic Act No. 1052 as amended by Republic Act No. 1787.

^[3]
Section 1, Republic Act No. 1052, as amended by Republic Act. No 1787.