PETITIONER Edwin H. Barroga was a full-time science and chemistry teacher at respondent Quezon Colleges of the North (QCN) high school department from June 1985 to March 2014.
At the beginning of school year 2014-2015, he was told that he could not be given any teaching load because there were not enough enrollees. At that time, he was already due for optional retirement, having continuously served QCN for almost 30 years. Thus, petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal against QCN.
When the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA), it modified the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruling and held that petitioner was not illegally dismissed, but is nevertheless entitled to retirement pay, proportionate 13th month pay for 2014, and service incentive leave pay from 1985 until retirement, plus legal rate of interest of six percent per annum from finality of the CA decision until fully paid.
Did the CA commit a reversible error?
Ruling: No.
While retirement from service is similar to termination of employment insofar as they are common modes of ending employment, they are mutually exclusive, with varying juridical bases and resulting benefits.
Retirement from service is contractual, while termination of employment is statutory. Verily, the main feature of retirement is that it is the result of a bilateral act of both the employer and the employee based on their voluntary agreement that upon reaching a certain age, the employee agrees to sever his employment.
Since the core premise of retirement is that it is a voluntary agreement, it necessarily follows that if the intent to retire is not clearly established or if the retirement is involuntary, it is to be treated as a discharge.
The line between “voluntary” and “involuntary” retirement is thin but it is one which case law had already drawn. On the one hand, voluntary retirement cuts the employment ties, leaving no residual employer liability; on the other, involuntary retirement amounts to a discharge, rendering the employer liable for termination without cause.
The employee’s intent is decisive. In determining such intent, the relevant parameters to consider are the fairness of the process governing the retirement decision, the payment of stipulated benefits, and the absence of badges of intimidation or coercion.
Moreover, petitioner’s aforesaid claim is belied by the fact that about a week after the beginning of school year 2014-2015, he submitted to respondents the 2014 retirement letter where he expressed his intent to optionally retire at the age of 61.
Notably, records are bereft of any showing that petitioner ever challenged the authenticity and due execution of such letter. Further, if petitioner really believed that respondents indeed illegally dismissed him from service, then he would have already made such claim at the earliest instance, i.e., on July 28, 2014 when he filed a single entry approach (Sena) case against the latter. However, an examination of his Sena form readily shows that petitioner’s claim against respondents was just for “non-payment of retirement benefits,” which they ultimately agreed to settle.
Clearly, this agreement to settle cements petitioner’s intent and decision to opt for voluntary retirement which, as mentioned, is separate and distinct from the concept of dismissal as a mode of terminating employment.
Unfortunately, and as found by the tribunals a quo and the CA, respondents failed to comply with its undertaking under the settlement of agreement as petitioner’s retirement benefits remain unpaid.
From these circumstances, the Court is therefore inclined to hold that petitioner retired from service, but nonetheless, pursued the filing of the instant illegal dismissal case in order to recover the proper benefits due to him. In fact, it is telling that he never asked to be reinstated, as he only sought the payment of his retirement benefits. In view of the foregoing, respondents must duly pay petitioner not only his retirement benefits, but also his other monetary claims (i.e., proportionate 13th month pay for 2014 and service incentive leave pay from 1985 until his retirement) which the tribunals a quo and the CA also found to be unpaid. (Edwin H. Barroga vs. Quezon Colleges of the North, et.al., G.R. No. 235572, December 5, 2018).