G.R. No. 146202 ; July 14, 2004
RUFINA PATIS FACTORY and JESUS LUCAS, SR., petitioners, vs. JUAN ALUSITAIN, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Juan Alusitain was hired by petitioner Rufina Patis Factory in March 1948. On February 19, 1991, he tendered a letter of resignation, effective the next day, which was received by the company. On May 22, 1991, he executed a notarized Affidavit of Separation from Employment, submitted to the SSS, stating his separation on February 20, 1991, and that he could not secure a company certification because he had “not reached the company applicable age of retirement.” Republic Act No. 7641 , mandating retirement pay for qualified private sector employees, took effect on January 7, 1993.
In 1995, Alusitain, claiming he actually retired on January 31, 1995, at age 65 due to poor health, demanded retirement benefits from petitioners. He asserted he continued working after 1991 and that the resignation letter and affidavit were merely for SSS purposes. Petitioners refused, contending his employment ended with his voluntary resignation in 1991. Alusitain filed a complaint for non-payment of retirement benefits.

ISSUE

Whether Juan Alusitain is entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 .

RULING

Yes, Alusitain is entitled to retirement benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that Alusitain successfully rebutted the presumption of resignation established by his 1991 documents. He presented a sworn statement and corroborating testimony from his daughter that he continued working until January 1995. Petitioners failed to present convincing counter-evidence, such as payroll records or company logbooks, to disprove this claim.
The legal logic hinges on the application of labor law principles and the burden of proof. While the resignation letter and affidavit constituted prima facie evidence of separation, they were not conclusive. In labor cases, technical rules of evidence are not strictly applied; the paramount concern is substantial justice. Alusitain’s claim of continued service, supported by credible testimony and uncontroverted by the employer, was sufficient to establish that he was still employed when R.A. 7641 took effect and until he reached the compulsory retirement age of 65. Consequently, having rendered at least five years of service and having reached age 60, he qualified for retirement benefits under the law. The employer’s failure to maintain or present records to refute the claim justified the award in the employee’s favor.