This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| On May 13, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision[27] partially granting Angus' Petition. While it found her dismissal valid in both substance and procedural aspects, it declared Angus entitled to separation pay in addition to the retirement pay she already received. Citing Cruz v. Philippine Global Communications, Inc.,[28] the CA ruled that Angus is entitled to the payment of both retirement benefit and separation pay in view of the absence of any provision in the CBA prohibiting the payment of both. It also concluded that Angus did not voluntarily sign the release and quitclaim as under its terms, she would receive less than what she is legally entitled to. Further, Angus was granted attorney's fees as she was forced to litigate to protect her rights and interest, as well as moral damages for the anxiety and distress that she suffered because of the pressure exerted on her to avail of early retirement and accept her retirement pay. | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| [T]here is no further doubt that the payment of separation pay is a requirement of the law, i.e.[,] the Labor Code, which is a social legislation. The clear intent of Article XI, section 6 [of the Retirement Plan] is to input the effects of social legislation in the circulation of Retirement benefits due to retiring employees x x x. The Retirement Plan itself clearly sets forth the intention of the parties to entitle employees only to whatever is greater between the Retirement Benefits then due and that which the law requires to be given by way of separation pay. To give way to complainant's demands would be to totally ignore the contractual obligations of the parties in the Retirement Plan, and to distort the clear intent of the parties as expressed in the terms and conditions contained in such plan. x x x.[33] (emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| There being such a provision, as held in Cruz v. Philippine Global Communications, Inc.,[37] petitioner is entitled only to either the separation pay under the law or retirement benefits under the Plan, and not both. | |||||