G.R. No. 144400 ; September 19, 2001
DOMINGO O. IGNACIO, petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Domingo O. Ignacio was an employee of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for six years until 1981, when SMC’s Soft Drinks Division was incorporated into respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI). CCBPI hired Ignacio as a regular employee. His transfer was confirmed by a letter dated 23 March 1982, stating he would “enjoy the same benefits under the Retirement and Death Benefit Plan… of San Miguel Corporation” and that CCBPI would recognize his SMC service years for retirement purposes. Ignacio retired from CCBPI on 30 June 1996, with almost 20 years of service (including his 6 years at SMC). CCBPI computed his optional retirement benefit at 100% of his monthly pay times years of service (100% retirement benefit), amounting to P998,224.60. Ignacio demanded that his benefit be computed at 200% for 20 years of service (200% retirement benefit) as provided in the current SMC Retirement Plan, citing his 1982 appointment letter. CCBPI denied his request. Ignacio filed a complaint for retirement pay differential and damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Domingo O. Ignacio is entitled to the 200% retirement benefit under the current SMC Retirement and Death Benefit Plan, based on the terms of his 23 March 1982 appointment letter with CCBPI.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The Court held that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals were conclusive, as they were supported by evidence and devoid of arbitrariness. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s reasoning, which held that:
1. The phrase “same benefits” in the 23 March 1982 appointment letter referred to the benefits under the SMC Plan as they existed at the time of Ignacio’s transfer in 1982, not to future or amended versions of the plan. At that time, the SMC Plan provided only a 100% retirement benefit, which was the same rate under CCBPI’s plan.
2. The 26 March 1982 letter from SMC to CCBPI reinforced that upon transfer, Ignacio ceased to enjoy SMC privileges and was covered by CCBPI’s policies.
3. Ignacio’s availment of a car loan from the CCBPI Plan funds indicated his acceptance of coverage under that plan.
4. There was no basis for awarding damages and attorney’s fees in the absence of bad faith on CCBPI’s part.
The Court emphasized that review in such cases is limited to questions of law, and the petitioner presented no compelling reason to overturn the concurrent factual findings of the three tribunals below.