This case has been cited 12 times or more.
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| On 23 January 1963, Petitioner Cayo F. Gamogamo was first employed with the Department of Health (DOH) as Dental Aide. On 22 February 1967, he was promoted to the position of Dentist 1. He remained employed at the DOH for fourteen years until he resigned on 2 November 1977.[1] | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| He was already due for mandatory retirement in April 1995 under his retirement plan (first day of the month following his 60th birthday which was on 7 March 1995). Eventually, petitioner retired after serving the Respondent and LUSTEVECO for 17 years and 4 months upon reaching his 60th birthday, on 1 April 1995. He received a retirement pay of P512,524.15,[9] which is equivalent to one month pay for every year of service and other benefits. | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| On 30 August 1995, Admiral Carlito Y. Cunanan, Repondent's president, died of Dengue Fever and was forthwith replaced by Dr. Nemesio E. Prudente who assumed office in December 1995. The new president implemented significant cost-saving measures. In 1996, after petitioner's retirement, the cases of Dr. Rogelio T. Buena (company doctor) and Mrs. Luz C. Reyes (telephone operator), who were holding permanent/non-redundant positions but were willing to be retrenched under the program were brought to the attention of the new president who ordered that a study on the cost-effect of the retrenchment of these employees be conducted. After a thorough study, Respondent's Board of Directors recommended the approval of the retrenchment. These two employees were retrenched and paid a 2-month separation pay for every year of service under Respondent's Manpower Reduction Program.[10] | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner's complaint.[11] On appeal, however, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. In its decision[12] of 28 November 1997, the NLRC ruled: | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| (1) the government service of the complainant with the Department of Health numbering fourteen (14) years is hereby considered creditable service for purposes of computing his retirement benefits; (2) crediting his fourteen (14) years service with the Department of Health, together with his nearly eighteen (18) years of service with the respondent, complainant therefore has almost thirty-two (32) years service upon which his retirement benefits would be computed or based on; (3) complainant is entitled to the full payment of his retirement benefits pursuant to the respondent's Retirement Law or the retrenchment program (Manpower Reduction Program). In any case, he is entitled to two (2) months retirement/separation pay for every year of service. (4) all other claims are DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.[13] | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| No pronouncement as to costs. His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals,[15] petitioner filed with us the petition in the case at bar. Petitioner contends that: (1) his years of service with the DOH must be considered as creditable service for the purpose of computing his retirement pay; and (2) he was discriminated against in the application of the Manpower Reduction Program.[16] | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Respondent's Retirement scheme[19] pertinently provides: ARTICLE IV | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Petitioner was absorbed by Respondent from LUSTEVECO on 1 August 1979. Ordinarily, his creditable service shall be reckoned from such date. However, since Respondent took over the shipping business of LUSTEVECO and agreed to assume without interruption all the service credits of petitioner with LUSTEVECO,[21] petitioner's creditable service must start from 9 November 1977 when he started working with LUSTEVECO[22] until his day of retirement on 1 April 1995. Thus, petitioner's creditable service is 17.3333 years. | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Petitioner was absorbed by Respondent from LUSTEVECO on 1 August 1979. Ordinarily, his creditable service shall be reckoned from such date. However, since Respondent took over the shipping business of LUSTEVECO and agreed to assume without interruption all the service credits of petitioner with LUSTEVECO,[21] petitioner's creditable service must start from 9 November 1977 when he started working with LUSTEVECO[22] until his day of retirement on 1 April 1995. Thus, petitioner's creditable service is 17.3333 years. | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| It may also be pointed out that upon his receipt of the amount of P512,524.15 from Respondent as retirement benefit pursuant to its retirement scheme, petitioner signed and delivered to Respondent a Release and Undertaking wherein he waives all actions, causes of actions, debts, dues, monies and accounts in connection with his employment with Respondent.[24] This quitclaim releases Respondent from any other obligation in favor of petitioner. While quitclaims executed by employees are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and are ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the employees' legal rights, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers' claims which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[25] Settled is the rule that not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person; and (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face.[26] We discern nothing from the record that would suggest that petitioner was coerced, intimidated or deceived into signing the Release and Undertaking. Neither are we convinced that the consideration for the quitclaim is unconscionable because it is actually the full amount of the retirement benefit provided for in the company's retirement plan. | |||||