GR 120256; (August, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120256 August 18, 1997
HERMITO CABCABAN, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION and TEODORA CABILLO DE GUIA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Hermito Cabcaban filed a complaint for retirement benefits under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7641 against respondent Teodora Cabillo de Guia, owner of Hacienda Corazon de Jesus. He alleged continuous employment from 1962 until July 1991. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering payment of retirement pay. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision. The respondents presented as new evidence Cabcaban’s own SSS Application for Retirement Benefit, filed in March 1991, which indicated his employment history was only from July 1973 to December 31, 1978, and that he was born in 1930. The NLRC concluded his cause of action had prescribed and that he was not entitled to benefits under R.A. 7641, as his separation allegedly occurred in 1978, years before the law’s effectivity in 1993.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Hermito Cabcaban is entitled to retirement benefits under R.A. 7641 or any other legal provision.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC. The legal logic centered on the application of R.A. 7641 and the pre-amendment Article 287 of the Labor Code. R.A. 7641, which amended Article 287 to mandate retirement pay for qualified employees in the absence of a company plan, took effect only on January 7, 1993. The Court held it could not be applied retroactively to benefit Cabcaban. The evidence, particularly his SSS application certified by the respondent herself, established his separation date as December 31, 1978, when he was only 48 years old. Since his separation predated the effectivity of R.A. 7641 by over a decade, the law did not cover him. Furthermore, under the old Article 287, retirement benefits were due only if stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement, employment contract, or company policy. Cabcaban failed to prove the existence of any such agreement granting him retirement pay. Consequently, having no vested right to retirement benefits under the applicable laws at the time of his separation, his claim lacked merit. The Court deemed the issues of prescription and entitlement to additional SSS benefits moot, as no cause of action existed.