G.R. No. 205813 , January 10, 2018
Alfredo F. Laya, Jr. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, et al.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfredo F. Laya, Jr. was appointed as the Chief Legal Counsel of Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) in 2001. His appointment letter referenced a retirement plan but did not attach the plan’s details or specify a compulsory retirement age. PVB later retired Laya upon reaching age 60, pursuant to its retirement plan which set 60 as the compulsory retirement age. Laya contested this, arguing he was entitled to the statutory compulsory retirement age of 65 under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as the specific retirement age was not disclosed to him at the time of his appointment.
The case reached the Supreme Court on a second motion for reconsideration. The ponencia, concurred with by Justice Carpio, ruled in favor of Laya. Justice Leonen dissented, arguing that as Chief Legal Counsel, Laya was presumed to have exercised due diligence regarding his employment terms, including the retirement plan. The dissent also emphasized procedural grounds, stating that a second motion for reconsideration should not be entertained barring a higher interest of justice, and that finality of judgments should be respected.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner validly waived his constitutional right to security of tenure by accepting an appointment that referenced, but did not fully disclose, a retirement plan setting a compulsory retirement age lower than the statutory default.

RULING

Justice Carpio, in his Concurring Opinion, voted to grant the petition. The legal logic centers on the standard for waiving a constitutional right. The right to security of tenure is a fundamental constitutional right. Any waiver thereof must be clear, categorical, knowing, and intelligent; it cannot be presumed or implied. The Court indulges every reasonable presumption against such a waiver.
Here, while PVB had a retirement plan setting age 60 as compulsory, this critical term was not made known to Laya at the time of his appointment in 2001. The appointment letter merely mentioned a retirement plan without specifying the age or providing the plan document. Consequently, Laya could not have knowingly waived his statutory right to retire at age 65. The fact that he is a lawyer does not give rise to a presumption of waiver; the requirement for a clear, knowing, and intelligent waiver applies equally. The employer bears the burden of proving such a waiver was made, which PVB failed to discharge. Therefore, the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure prevails, entitling Laya to the statutory retirement age of 65.