Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 378 views

    Case#2 SANTO vs. UNIVERSITY OF CEBU

    Uploaded by

    Rio Tolentino
    The Supreme Court ruled that Santo's retirement benefits should be computed based on Article 287 of the Labor Code, which provides 22.5 days of salary for every year of service, rather than the University's Faculty Manual which only provides 15 days. The Court also ruled that Santo's intention to practice law after retirement does not affect her entitlement to retirement benefits under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Case#2 SANTO vs. UNIVERSITY OF CEBU

    Uploaded by

    Rio Tolentino
    378 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Santo's retirement benefits should be computed based on Article 287 of the Labor Code, which provides 22.5 days of salary for every year of service, rather than the University's Faculty Manual which only provides 15 days. The Court also ruled that Santo's intention to practice law after retirement does not affect her entitlement to retirement benefits under the law.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that Santo's retirement benefits should be computed based on Article 287 of the Labor Code, which provides 22.5 days of salary for every year of service, rather than the University's Faculty Manual which only provides 15 days. The Court also ruled that Santo's intention to practice law after retirement does not affect her entitlement to retirement benefits under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    378 views2 pages

    Case#2 SANTO vs. UNIVERSITY OF CEBU

    Uploaded by

    Rio Tolentino
    The Supreme Court ruled that Santo's retirement benefits should be computed based on Article 287 of the Labor Code, which provides 22.5 days of salary for every year of service, rather than the University's Faculty Manual which only provides 15 days. The Court also ruled that Santo's intention to practice law after retirement does not affect her entitlement to retirement benefits under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CARISSA E.

    SANTO
    vs.
    UNVERSITY OF CEBU
    G.R. NO. 232522 : August 28, 2019
    LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

    Facts:

    Petitioner Santo was a full-time instructor in the respondent University of Cebu. After completing
    sixteen years of service, the petitioner applied for optional retirement under the respondent’s Faculty
    Manual which states, “A permanent employee may, upon reaching his 55th birthday or after having
    completed at least 15 years of service, opt for an early retirement (which is a resignation with separation
    pay) considering that separation before reaching 15 years of full-time service does not entitle an
    employee to any separation pay, except that which is contributed by the University to PAG-IBIG), and
    shall be entitled to the retirement pay equivalent to a total of fifteen (15) days for every year of service
    based on the average monthly salary to the employee computed for the past three years”.

    When respondent computed the petitioner’s retirement pay at 15 days for every year of service as per
    the provisions of the Faculty Manual, the petitioner asserted that her retirement pay should be
    equivalent to 22.5 days per year of service in accordance with Article 287 of the Labor code. The NLRC
    ruled that Article 287 was not intended to benefit petitioner who voluntarily resigned not to rest in the
    twilight years of her life but to actively engage in the practice of the legal profession. The CA affirmed
    the decision of NLRC. Hence, this petition.

    Issue:

    1. Whether the petitioner’s retirement benefit shall be based on the Faculty Manual or Article 287
    of the Labor Code.

    2. Whether the Retirement Pay Law bars employee from practicing a profession after retirement.

    Held:

    1. The computation of the retirement benefit shall be based on Article 287 of the Labor Code.

    The retirement benefit is equivalent to 1/2-month salary for every year of service, the 1/2 month being
    computed at 22.5 days provided the employee has worked with his or her employer for at least five (5)
    years prior to retirement

    The fifteen (15) days' worth of salary for every year of service provided under respondent's Faculty
    Manual is much less than 22.5 days' worth of salary for every year of service provided under Article 287
    of the Labor Code. Obviously, it is more beneficial for petitioner if Article 287's retirement plan will be
    applied in the computation of' her retirement benefits. The Court in citing the case of Beltran v. AMA
    Computer College-Binan, the Court ruled that while the employer is free to grant retirement benefits
    and impose different age or service requirements, the benefits should not be lesser than those provided
    in Article 287 of the Labor Code.

    2. No. the intention of the petitioner to practice law after retiring do not affect her entitlement to
    retirement benefits under the law. A retirement plan entitling an employee to retire after fifteen (15)
    years of service and accordingly collect retirement benefits is "reward for services rendered since it
    enables an employee to reap the fruits of her labor, particularly retirement benefits. Thus, retirement
    plans under any employment contract or agreement are not absolutely beyond the ambit of judicial
    review. A retirement plan, as a labor contract, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with
    public interest. If the retirement provisions of the company run contrary to law, public morals, or public
    policy, such provisions may be reviewed and even voided.

    You might also like