DE LA SALLE ARANETA UNIVERSITY vs. BERNARDO
G.R. No. 190809
Facts of the case:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by De La Salle-Araneta University (DLS-AU) seeking the annulment and reversal of the Decision1 dated June 29, 2009 and Resolution2 dated January 4, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106399, which affirmed in toto the Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 043416-05. The NLRC reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision4 dated December 13, 2004 in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-02-02729-04 and found that respondent Juanito C. Bernardo (Bernardo) was entitled to retirement benefits.
On February 26, 2004, Bernardo filed a complaint against DLS-AU and its owner/manager, Dr. Oscar Bautista (Dr. Bautista), for the payment of retirement benefits. Bernardo alleged that he started working as a part-time professional lecturer at DLS-AU (formerly known as the Araneta University Foundation) on June 1, 1974 for an hourly rate of ₱20.00. Bernardo taught for two semesters and the summer for the school year 1974-1975. Bernardo then took a leave of absence from June 1, 197 5 to October 31, 1977 when he was assigned by the Philippine Government to work in Papua New Guinea. When Bernardo came back in 1977, he resumed teaching at DLS-AU until October ’12, 2003, the end of the first semester for school year 2003-2004. Bernardo’s teaching contract was renewed at the start of every semester and summer. However, on November 8, 2003, DLS-AU informed Bernardo through a telephone call that he could not teach at the school anymore as the school was implementing the retirement age limit for its faculty members.
Bernardo immediately sought advice from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regarding his entitlement to retirement benefits after 27 years of employment. In letters dated January 20, 20046 and February 3, 2004,7 the DOLE, through its Public Assistance Center and Legal Service Office, opined that Bernardo was entitled to receive benefits under Republic Act No. 7641, otherwise known as the “New Retirement Law,” and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Yet, Dr. Bautista, in a letter8 dated February 12, 2004, stated that Bernardo was not entitled to any kind of separation pay or benefits. Dr. Bautista explained to Bernardo that as mandated by the DLS-AU’s policy and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), only full-time permanent faculty of DLS-AU for at least five years immediately preceeding the termination of their employment could avail themselves of the postemployment benefits. As part-time faculty member, Bernardo did not acquire permanent employment under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length of service.
Bernardo filed before the NLRC, National Capital Region, a complaint for non-payment of retirement benefits and damages against DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista. On December 13, 2004, the Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing Bernardo’s complaint on the ground that the claim for retirement benefits/pay is already barred by prescription.
Bernardo appealed the foregoing Labor Arbiter’s Decision to the NLRC and in a Resolution dated September 15, 2008, the NLRC denied the Motion for Reconsideration of DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista for lack of merit.
DLS-AU filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, and the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on June 29, 2009, affirming in toto the NLRC judgment.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF THOSE ENTITLED TO RETIREMENT
The answer is in affirmative.
Under Republic Act No. 7641, it states that “any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age x x x;” and “[i]n case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements.” The Implementing Rules provide that Republic Act No. 7641 applies to “all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted x x x.” And Secretary Quisumbing’ s Labor Advisory further clarifies that the employees covered by Republic Act No. 7641 shall “include part-time employees, employees of service and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of another.” The only exemptions specifically identified by Republic Act No. 7641 and its Implementing Rules are: (1) employees of the National Government and its political subdivisions, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, if they are covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations; and (2) employees of retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations regularly employing not more than 10 employees.
Based on Republic Act No. 7641, its Implementing Rules, and Secretary Quisumbing’s Labor Advisory, Bernardo, as a part-time employee of DLS-AU, is entitled to retirement benefits. The general coverage of Republic Act No. 7641 is broad enough to encompass all private sector employees, and part-time employees are not among those specifically exempted from the law. The provisions of Republic Act No. 7641 and its Implementing Rules are plain, direct, unambiguous, and need no further elucidation. Any doubt is dispelled by the unequivocal statement in Secretary Quisumbing’s Labor Advisory that Republic Act No. 7641 applies to even part-time employees.
Wherefore, the petition should be dismissed and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Real LexEcon 