Catotocan v. Lourdes School of Quezon City, et. al.

,
G.R No. 213486, April 26, 2017
Peralta, J.
FACTS:

In the Administrative order for all employees, it was stated there that an employee may apply for
retirement when he/she reaches the age of 60 or when he/she completes thirty years of service,
whichever comes first. There is an addendum to the retirement plan which makes the provision
that normal retirement will commence after completing “30 years of service”.

Catotocan was notified that she will be retired for having served at least 30 years with
accompanying computation of her retirement pay. After the retirement, Catotocan, through Letter
of Intent signified her interest to serve the school as a guidance counselor which the school
approved.

However, in 2009, when Catotocan re-applied for the position of Guidance Counselor, the LSQC
no longer considered her application for the position. Catotocan filed for illegal dismissal and
monetary claims.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Catotocan was illegally dismissed. (NEGATIVE)

RULING:

It must be emphasized that the re-hiring was exclusive only for those employees who has availed
of the retirement benefits or who has been retired by the school but who has not yet reached 65
years of age. Thus, since Catotocan has availed of this contractual employment which is
exclusively offered only to LSQC's qualified retirees for three (3) consecutive years following
her retirement, she can no longer dispute that she has indeed legitimately retired from
employment, and was not illegally dismissed.

Although the Court has, more often than not, been inclined towards the plight of the workers and
has upheld their cause in their conflicts with the employers, such inclination has not blinded it to
the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the
established facts and applicable law and doctrine.