GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. and REMEGIO RAMOS vs.

MARINA ANGUS
G.R. No. 185449, November 12, 2014
Del Castillo
Digest by: DOLAR

TOPIC: Post-Employment; Retirement

PARTIES:
Employer: Goodyear Philippines, Inc.
Employee: Marina Angus

DOCTRINE: In the absence of an express or an implied prohibition against it, the collection of both
retirement benefits and separation pay upon severance from employment is allowed.

RECIT-READY: Respondent was terminated from service on account of cost-saving measures

implemented by Petitioner. As Respondent had reached the minimum age and rendered many years of
service, she was granted retirement benefits. However, Respondent did not agree with the rate given to
her. She also later sought separation pay on top of the retirement benefits. Ultimately, the SC granted the
Respondent’s claim. It was ruled that since there was not express prohibition in the CBA, Respondent
was entitled to claim retirement benefits AND separation pay.

FACTS:
• Respondent was employed by Petitioner on Nov. 16, 1996 as secretary to the Manager of Quality
and Technology.
• Some years later, Petitioner implemented cost-saving measures which included the streamlining
of its workforce.
• In relation to this, Ramos, the head of Petitioner’s HR Department, sent a letter dated Sept. 18,
2001 to Respondent.
• Said letter advised Respondent that:
• her position had become redundant and will be abolished;
• her last day of work will be September 18, 2001;
• that in consideration of her 34.92 years of service and her having reached the minimum
age of 55, Respondent was to be granted an early retirement benefit at the rate of 47
days’ worth of pay per year of service, as well as other benefits.
• Respondent replied through another letter, accepting the early retirement but countered that she
should be given an additional 3 days premium for the total of 50 days’ worth of pay per year of
service.
• Petitioner later issued checks in favor of Respondent, but computed at 47 days’ worth of pay.
• Respondent accepted the checks but stipulated that she received the same under
protest.
• Respondent further stated that since her termination was for redundancy, she will also
claim her separation pay as mandated by the LC, and said claim is separate from her
retirement benefits.
• When Respondent refused to sign a Release and Quitclaim, Petitioners took back the checks.
• Petitioner later wrote to Respondent, explaining that based on the CBA she could only collect
either retirement benefits or separation pay, but not both.
• Respondent finally accepted a check amounting to Php 1.95M purportedly inclusive of all
termination benefits. She also executed a Release and Quitclaim.
• Respondent subsequently filed a case for illegal dismissal with claims for separation pay against
Petitioner.
• The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. This was affirmed by the NLRC.
• On Respondent’s appeal, the CA rendered a decision partially granting the same. The CA found
that while the dismissal was valid, Respondent was entitled to separation pay in addition to
retirement benefits. Aggrieved, Petitioner this filed the instant petition.
ISSUE/S: Whether Respondent can be allowed to collect retirement benefits as well as severance pay. –
YES

HELD: The instant petition is devoid of merit. 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 some money during the period that he is
looking for another employment and is recoverable only in instances enumerated under Arts. 297 and 298
of the Labor Code or in illegal dismissal cases when reinstatement is not feasible.  In the case at bar, Art.
298 clearly entitles Respondent to separation pay apart from the retirement benefits she received from
Petitioner.

RULE: In the case of Aquino v. NLRC, the Court held that 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 right to receive separation pay in addition to retirement benefits depends on the provision of the
company’s Retirement Plan and/or CBA.

IN THIS CASE: Both Petitioner and Respondent had presented their respective copied of the CBA. Of
these, the CBA presented by Petitioner contained a prohibition on collecting both retirement benefits and
separation pay. HOWEVER, this CBA cannot be considered as substantial evidence. This is because
there was no showing that said CBA was the one in force at the time material to the case.

The CBA presented by Respondent however was shown to be the 2001-2004 CBA. Upon examination, it
was shown that it did not contain any prohibition or restriction on the availment of benefits under the
Retirement Plan and of separation pay. Thus the CA did not err in granting Respondent separation pay in
addition to the retirement benefits she already received.

Petitioner also cannot use the quitclaim executed by Respondent to aid his claim. The terms of such
quitclaims cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally entitled.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, absent such prohibition, the Respondent should be allowed to collect both
claims. This is grounded on the social justice policy that doubts should be always resolved in favor of
labor rights.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.