G.R. No.

185449 November 12, 2014

GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. and REMEGIO M. RAMOS, Petitioners, vs.

MARINA L. ANGUS, Respondent.

Factual Antecedents:
- Angus was an employee of Goodyear as a Secretary to the Manager of Quality and Technology.
Goodyear implemented a cost-saving measure. As a result, her employment with Goodyear was
terminated due to redundancy. She was given a notice and an option to avail an early retirement with a
separation benefit of 47 Days per year of service instead of 45 days only. Angus claims that she is
entitled for both termination pay and early retirement benefits.

Issue(s): WON Angus is entitled to both separation pay and retirement pay.

Held: YES, Angus is entitled to both separation pay and early retirement benefit due to the absence of a specific
provision in the CBA prohibiting recovery of both.
- An employee is entitled to recover both separation pay and retirement benefits in the absence of a
specific prohibition in the Retirement Plan or CBA. The Court ruled that an employee’s right to
receive separation pay in addition to the retirement benefits depends upon the provisions of the
company’s Retirement Plan and/or CBA.
- Here, petitioners allege that there is a provision in the last CBA against the recovery of both retirement
benefits and separation pay. None to support their claim, petitioners submitted a copy of what appears
to be a portion of the company CBA. Section 1, Article XI thereof provides that the availment of
retirement benefits precludes entitlement to any separation pay. The same, however, can hardly be
considered as substantial evidence because it does not appear to be an integral part of Goodyear's CBA.
Even assuming that it is, it would still not suffice as there is no showing if the CBA under which the said
provision is found was the one in force at the time material to this case. On the other hand, Angus
presented the parties' 2001-2004 CBA and upon examination of the same, the Court agrees with her
that it does not contain any restriction on the availment of benefits under the company's Retirement
Plan and of separation pay.
- It is worthy to mention at this point that retirement benefits and separation pay are not mutually
exclusive. Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employee's loyalty and service to an employer
and are earned under existing laws, CBAs, employment contracts and company policies. On the other
hand, separation pay is that amount which an employee receives at the time of his severance from
employment, designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is
looking for another employment and is recoverable only in instances enumerated under Articles 283
and 284 of the Labor Code or in illegal dismissal cases when reinstatement is not feasible. In the case at
bar, Article 283 clearly entitles Angus to separation pay apart from the retirement benefits she received
from petitioners.

R. Rances
UNEP College of Law
Labor Law and Social Legislation
G.R. No. 150180 October 17, 2008

FLAVIO S. SUAREZ, JR., et. al, petitioners, vs.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, respondents.

Factual Antecedents:
- National Steel Corporation was in the business of manufacturing steel products. In 1994, National
Steel suffered substantial financial losses and adopted an organizational streamlining program that
resulted in the retrenchment of seven hundred (700) employees. They were served notices and promised
to receive separation packages. A new CBA and pursuant thereto, the retrenched employees were given
their salary differentials and separation packages. After more than two years, the retrenched employees
demanded retirement benefits under the new CBA.

Issue(s): WON the retrenched employees are entitled to retirement benefits and separation pay.

Held: NO, National Steel’s retirement plan explicitly prohibits the recovery of retirement benefits in cases of
terminations for cause.
- Here, there is no dispute that Suarez and others were separated from the service for cause, as it was due
to a valid retrenchment undertaken by National Steel. Unarguably, retrenchment is recognized as one of
the authorized causes for termination of employment under Article 283 of the Labor Code.
- Suarez and others are barred from receiving retirement benefits pursuant to Article X(E) of National
Steel’s retirement plan. With the inclusion of such provision in the retirement plan, National Steel
categorically disallows payment of retirement benefits to retrenched employees. They are only entitled
to payment of separation pay in accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code.
- CBA readily shows that retirement benefits shall be granted only to those employees who, after
rendering at least ten (10) years of continuous services, would retire upon reaching the mandatory
retirement age, or would avail of optional voluntary retirement. Nowhere can it be deduced from the
CBA that those employees whose employment was terminated through one of the authorized causes are
entitled to retirement benefits. CBA specifically provides that retrenched employees shall be given two
(2) months pay for every year of service. Section 3 shows the intention of the parties to exclude
retrenched employees from receiving retirement benefits under the existing retirement plan as set forth
in Section 1.
- The intention of the new CBA to make the retrenchment compensation/package and the retirement
benefits mutually exclusive of each other is further evidenced by the affidavits executed by members of
management and the union.

R. Rances
UNEP College of Law
Labor Law and Social Legislation
G.R. No. 114337 September 29, 1995

NITTO ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROBERTO CAPILI, respondents.

Factual Antecedents:

- Nitto Enterprises hired Roberto Capili in May 1990 as an apprentice machinist, molder and core maker
as evidenced by an apprenticeship agreement for a period of six (6) months. Capili, who was handling a
piece of glass which he was working on, accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office secretary. That
same day, Capili entered a workshop within the office premises which was not his work station. There,
he operated one of the power press machines without authority and injured his left thumb. The
following day, Capili was asked to resign.

Issue(s): WON Capili was an apprentice.

Held: NO, the apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it was signed notwithstanding the absence of
approval by the Department of Labor and Employment.
- The apprenticeship agreement between Nitto and Capili was executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly
employing the latter as an apprentice in the trade of "care maker/molder." On the same date, an
apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner and submitted to the Department of Labor and
Employment. However, the apprenticeship Agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990.
- The law is clear on this matter (Article 61 of the Labor Code). It is mandated that apprenticeship
agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the
apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment.
- Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed apprenticeship program
is, therefore, a condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into.
- The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor and Employment
is a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not instantaneously give rise to an
employer-apprentice relationship.
- Article 57 of the Labor Code provides that the State aims to "establish a national apprenticeship
program through the participation of employers, workers and government and non-government
agencies" and "to establish apprenticeship standards for the protection of apprentices." To translate such
objectives into existence, prior approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship program has to be secured
as a condition sine qua non before any such apprenticeship agreement can be fully enforced. The role of
the DOLE in apprenticeship programs and agreements cannot be debased.
- Hence, since the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent has no force and
effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved by the DOLE, private
respondent's assertion that he was hired not as an apprentice but as a delivery boy ("kargador" or
"pahinante") deserves credence.

R. Rances
UNEP College of Law
Labor Law and Social Legislation
G.R. No. L-61684 October 11, 1983

ROLANDO ROXAS SURVEYING COMPANY, petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MATHEW LEONARDO, respondents.

Factual Antecedents:
- Rolando Roxas Surveying Co. hired Leonardo as surveyman. He started working as a surveyman with
seven men under him in Surigao del Sur. In September 1976, he requested and was granted 15 days
vacation leave. After the expiration of his leave of absence, he reported for work but was not allowed by
the engineer of the cadastral survey party unless the Rolando Roxas Surveying gave its consent. For this
reason, he sent a telegram to Rolando Roxas Surveying but received no reply. He went to Manila and
called up Rolando Roxas Surveying who told him he could no longer return to his job because of the
irregularities he had committed during his employment. Hence, the filing of charges.

Issue(s): WON Leonardo was an apprentice.

Held: NO, there was no written agreement that his services had been engaged as an apprentice. On the contrary,
every circumstance would indicate that he was accepted on the basis of his credentials that he had been an
employee for several years as a surveyor in the Bureau of Lands. He was given a salary of P450.00 a month and,
on June 1, 1976, was sent to Surigao del Sur to perform the work of a surveyor, with seven men under him to
supervise.
- For all intents and purposes, he comes within the meaning of a regular employee "to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employees." (Article 281 of
the Labor Code). In short, if it was really the intention of Rolando Roxas Surveying Co to employ
Leonard as an apprentice only, it should have so stated the same clearly and in writing.
- Thus, as a regular employee, Leonardo cannot be terminated except for a just cause or when authorized
under Article 283 of the Labor Code.

R. Rances
UNEP College of Law
Labor Law and Social Legislation