GR 102157; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102157 July 23, 1993
GVM SECURITY AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY AND PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANTONIO DULCE, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Antonio Dulce was employed as a security guard by petitioners in July 1958. On February 6, 1987, after 28 years of service, he tendered his voluntary resignation at the age of 64, stating he was going back to the province to put up a business and get his cash deposit. Petitioners paid him his cash deposit of P6,650.00, and he executed a quitclaim. On May 5, 1988, Dulce filed a complaint for monetary claims, including retirement pay. Petitioners denied liability, asserting they had no company policy, collective bargaining agreement, or retirement plan. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence but suggested ex-gratia benefits. On appeal, the NLRC initially granted a differential of P3,915.00 as separation pay. Upon motions for reconsideration, the NLRC, in its Resolution dated August 23, 1991, ordered petitioners to pay P27,325.00 as differential of retirement benefits and P2,742.50 as attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether a 64-year-old employee who voluntarily resigned is entitled to retirement benefits under the Labor Code in the absence of a company retirement plan, collective bargaining agreement, or an established company policy on such benefits.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC resolutions. Citing Llora Motor, Inc. v. Drilon and Abaquin Security and Detective Agency, Inc. v. Atienza, the Court held that under Article 287 of the Labor Code, entitlement to retirement benefits must be specifically granted under existing laws, a collective bargaining agreement, an employment contract, or an established employer policy. The Court explained that Article 287 does not impose an obligation on employers to set up a retirement scheme beyond those established under existing laws like the Social Security Act. Since private respondent did not claim benefits under the Social Security Law, a collective bargaining agreement, other applicable contract, or an established company policy, he was not entitled to retirement benefits. The Court stated that any asymmetry in the law regarding separation pay versus retirement benefits is for the legislature to remedy. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court was made permanent.