STA. CATALINA COLLEGE vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.

1. In June 1955, Hilaria was hired as an elementary school teacher at

the Sta. Catalina
2. In 1970, she applied for and was granted a one year leave of absence without
pay on account of the illness of her mother.
. !fter the e"piration in 1971 of her leave of absence, she had not been heard
ro! b" #et$t$oner s%hoo&.
#. In the meantime, she was employed as a teacher at the San 'edro 'aro%h$a&
S%hoo& during school year 19(0)19(1 and at the L$%eo de San 'edro, B$*an,
$aguna during school year 19(1)19(+.
%. In 19(+ she applied again at petitioner school Sta. Catalina. On Mar%h ++,
1997, during the %1
st
Commencement &"ercises of petitioner school, Hilaria was
awarded a 'la(ue of !ppreciation for th$rt" "ears o ser,$%e and '1+,000.00
as -rat.$t" #a".
). *n May 31, 1997, Hilaria reached the compulsory retirement age of 65.
+. 'etitioner school pegged her retirement benefits at '%,,-..%, computed on
the bas$s o $teen "ears o ser,$%e from 19(+ to 1997. Her service from
1955 to 1970 was excluded in the computation, petitioner school having
asserted that she had, $n 1971, abandoned her e!#&o"!ent.
.. /educted was the amount of '12,---.-- representing the gratuity pay plus the
employers contribution. 0he remaining benefits due her thus amounted 1.1.
,. Hilaria insisted, however, that her retirement benefits should be computed on the
basis of her thirty years of service, inclusive of the period from 1,%% to 1,+-2
and that the gratuity pay earlier given to her should not be deducted there from
and thus entitled to 1,-1.
1-. 0he parties having failed to agree on how the retirement benefits should be
computed, Hilaria filed a complaint
3.4
before the 5$6C
11. $abor !rbiter 'edro C. 6amos upheld petitioners7 position ordering the
respondents to pay the complainant the amount of '1.,1.%.2) only as the
differential of her retirement benefits.
12. *n appeal, the 5$6C, set aside the $abor !rbiter7s decision ordering Sta.
Catalina to pay the total amount of '.%,2.+.+2
1. 5ot satisfied with the 5$6C decision, petitioners brought the case on certiorarito
the C!.
1#. 0he C!, dismissed the petition holding that petitioners a$&ed to #ro,e that
/$&ar$a had abandoned her #os$t$on $n 1970, as #et$t$oner s%hoo& e,en -a,e
her a '&a0.e o A##re%$at$on or th$rt" "ears o ser,$%e and that #et$t$oner
s%hoo& ne,er sent not$%e to her d$s!$ss$n- her, hence, the employer8
employee relationship was not se,ered and, therefore, her services for
petitioner school during the period from 1955)1970 should be %red$ted $n the
%o!#.tat$on o her ret$re!ent bene$ts
Issue9
1. :hether Hilaria7s services for petitioner school during the period from 1955 to
1970 should be a%tored in the computation of her retirement benefit.
H&$/9 5o for Hilaria is deemed to have abandoned her teaching position and thus
effectively relin(uished the retirement benefits accumulated during such period.
0he Supreme Court stated factors that must be present in determining whether
there is abandonment
1. the failure to report for wor1, or absence without valid or ;ustifiable
reason2 and
2. a clear intention to sever employer8employee relationship, with the
second element as the more determinative factor, being manifested by
some overt acts.
Here, when the approved one year leave of absence without pay of Hilaria e"pired
in 1,+1her absence with ;ustifiable cause was cut8off. Hence from 1,+1 to 1,.2 to when
he was re8employed during the during of her absence 5or is it disputed that she was
rehired only in 1,.2 after filing anew an application, without her proffering any
e"planation for her more than a decade of absence. <nder the circumstances,
abandonment of wor1 at petitioner school in 1,+1 is indubitably manifest.
!s regards the re(uirement of notice of termination, it was error for the C! to apply
Se% +, R.&e 1I2, Boo3 2 o the O!n$b.s R.&es I!#&e!ent$n- the Labor Code.
324
It
should be noted that when Hilaria abandoned her teaching position in 1,+1, the law in
or%e 4as Re#.b&$% A%t 105+ or the Ter!$nat$on 'a" La4, as amended by 6epublic
!ct 1+.+, Section 1of and under such law an obligation on the part of the employer to
serve notice of termination arises only when the termination is without valid cause.
0hat Hilaria was in 1,,+ given a pla(ue of appreciation for thirty years of service to
the school and awarded '12,---.-- as gratuity pay should not be ta1en against
petitioners, or a%3no4&ed-!ent o the tota& n.!ber o "ears o her ser,$%e, which
4as d$s%ont$n.o.s, should not ob&$terate the a%t that she abandoned her
e!#&o"!ent in 1,+1, a&be$t she was rehired in 1,.2.
It was error too for the C! to conclude that since petitioner school d$d not a4ard
se#arat$on #a" and /$&ar$a5s share o her ret$re!ent %ontr$b.t$ons when she
=temporarily> stopped wor1ing after she left her teaching position in 1,+1, e!#&o"er)
e!#&o"ee re&at$on bet4een the! 4as not se,ered. It bears noting that an e!#&o"ee
4ho $s ter!$nated or 6.st %a.se $s -enera&&" not ent$t&ed to se#arat$on
#a". ?oreover, the 'ERAA, #et$t$oner s%hoo&5s s.bst$t.te ret$re!ent #&an, was only
established $n 197+, such that when /$&ar$a abandoned her 4or3 $n 1971, there 4ere
no ret$re!ent %ontr$b.t$ons to s#ea3 o.
!s Hilaria was %ons$dered a ne4 e!#&o"ee when she re;oined petitioner school
upon re8applying in 1,.2, her ret$re!ent bene$ts sho.&d th.s be %o!#.ted on&" on
the bas$s o her "ears o ser,$%e ro! 19(+ to 1997