G.R. No. 185346 & 185442; June 27, 2012
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Petitioner, vs. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO, Respondent. / MIGUELITO M. LAZARO, Petitioner, vs. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Miguelito Lazaro worked for Banco Filipino from February 1, 1968, rising to Assistant Vice-President. The bank was closed by the Central Bank on January 25, 1985. During the closure, Lazaro was re-employed in 1992 as part of a task force to collect delinquent accounts. After the Supreme Court declared the closure illegal, the bank reopened in June 1992. Lazaro retired on December 1, 1995, and was paid retirement benefits based on 20 years and 7 months of service at his final salary of ₱38,000 per month. Lazaro contested this, demanding payment for 27 years and 10 months of service, including the closure period. He also demanded that his retirement pay be based on a ₱50,000 salary rate, reflecting a December 1995 salary increase for senior officers. Further, he claimed attorney’s fees from foreclosures and profit shares from 1984 to 1995.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the seven-year bank closure period should be included in computing Lazaro’s length of service for retirement; (2) whether his retirement pay should be based on the increased ₱50,000 salary; and (3) whether his claims for attorney’s fees and unpaid profit shares were valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the closure period should be included. Citing Banco Filipino Staff Association v. Banco Filipino, the Court held that employees who worked during the bank’s liquidation, like Lazaro who was part of the task force, rendered service that inured to the bank’s benefit. Therefore, this period must be credited for retirement computation, entitling him to a differential for seven additional years. On the second issue, the Court denied the claim for a higher salary base. Lazaro retired effective December 1, 1995, the same day the salary increase was granted. The bank’s Retirement Fund Rules clearly state benefits are based on the “final salary.” Since the increase took effect upon his retirement, his final salary remained ₱38,000. On the third issue, the Court denied the claims for attorney’s fees and additional profit shares. As in-house counsel, any fees generated from foreclosure cases belonged to the bank as his employer. His claim for unpaid profit shares for 1985-1993 was unsubstantiated, as he failed to present evidence contradicting the vouchers presented by the bank showing full payment.