G.R. No. 200575, February 5, 2014
INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JEREMIAS CABILES, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Jeremias Cabiles was hired by petitioner Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. (Intel Phil.) on April 16, 1997. Over the years, he was promoted and assigned to Intel Arizona and Intel Chengdu. In December 2006, he was offered a position as Finance Manager by Intel Semiconductor Limited Hong Kong (Intel HK). Before accepting, Cabiles inquired via email from Intel Phil. about the consequences of the move, specifically asking if he would still be entitled to retirement benefits given that he would celebrate his 10th year of service on April 16, 2007, but was moving to Hong Kong as a local hire starting February 1, 2007. On January 23, 2007, Intel Phil., through Penny Gabronino, replied that he was “not eligible to receive your retirement benefit given that you have not reached 10 years of service at the time you moved to Hong Kong. We do not round up the years of service.” The email added, “There will [be] no gap in your years of service. So in case that you move back to the Philippines your total tenure of service will be computed less on the period that you are out of Intel Philippines.” Cabiles accepted the offer and signed a job offer with Intel HK on January 31, 2007. Intel Phil. issued him a final pay separation voucher on March 8, 2007, and on March 26, 2007, Cabiles executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of Intel Phil., acknowledging receipt of a sum as full settlement of all benefits due from his separation. Cabiles resigned from Intel HK after seven months, on September 8, 2007. On August 18, 2009, Cabiles filed a complaint for non-payment of retirement benefits, claiming he was employed by Intel for 10 years and 5 months from April 1997 to September 2007, including his stint with Intel HK, thus qualifying under the company’s retirement policy requiring at least 10 years of service.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Cabiles, ordering Intel Phil. and individual respondents to pay retirement benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modification, holding Intel Phil. solely liable. The NLRC treated Cabiles’s transfer to Intel HK as akin to his prior overseas assignments and found the email exchange insufficient to diminish his right to retirement benefits. It also disregarded the Waiver as the retirement pay had not yet accrued when it was signed. Intel Phil. filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition. Pending the CA proceedings, the NLRC issued a writ of execution, and Intel Phil. satisfied the judgment by paying the awarded amount on December 13, 2011. Intel Phil. then filed a supplement to its petition, praying for restitution of the amounts paid.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Jeremias Cabiles is entitled to retirement benefits from petitioner Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. under the company’s retirement policy, considering his transfer to Intel Hong Kong and the subsequent execution of a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that Cabiles was not entitled to retirement benefits from Intel Phil. The Court ruled that Cabiles’s employment with Intel Phil. was severed when he accepted the local hire position with Intel HK. His move was not a mere assignment or transfer but a separation from Intel Phil. and a new employment with a distinct corporate entity. The email exchange between Cabiles and Intel Phil. clearly informed him that he was not eligible for retirement benefits as he had not completed 10 years of service at the time of his move, and his years of service would not be rounded up. The Court emphasized that the company’s retirement policy, which required at least ten years of “Plan Service,” was a contractual benefit that could be availed of only upon compliance with its terms. Since Cabiles had only 9 years and about 9 months of service with Intel Phil. at the time of his separation, he did not meet the eligibility requirement.
Furthermore, the Court found the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim valid and binding. It constituted a voluntary settlement of claims, and there was no showing that it was executed under fraud, deceit, or coercion. The consideration he received was reasonable and not unconscionable. The fact that Cabiles waited about two years before filing his complaint indicated he had accepted the finality of the settlement. Consequently, the Court reversed the decisions of the CA and NLRC and ordered respondent Cabiles to return to Intel Phil. the amount of ₱2,485,337.35 he received pursuant to the writ of execution, with legal interest.