G.R. No. 232527 , July 07, 2021
Youngbros Parts Centre Inc. and Laurence Llave, Petitioners, vs. Uldarico I. Taduran, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Uldarico Taduran began working for petitioner Youngbros Parts Centre, Inc. in February 1972 and was promoted to Manager in 1990. On September 14, 2011, petitioner Laurence Llave offered him a retirement package, requiring an answer within 48 hours. Respondent inquired about details and was informed he was entitled to P511,875.99 as retirement pay, but had cash advances totaling P883,395.00. Petitioners waived the balance and offered P316,605.00 as financial assistance. On November 9, 2011, respondent sent a letter agreeing to avail of the retirement package, subject to a proper computation based on his claimed monthly compensation of P48,000.00. Petitioners denied his counter-offer. On December 1, 2011, respondent filed a complaint (NLRC NCR Case No. 12-17894-11) for various monetary claims, including retirement benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor. The NLRC, in a Decision dated June 28, 2013, modified the ruling and ordered the computation of his retirement pay based on a monthly salary of P17,200.00 from February 1972 to December 2011. This Decision became final. Respondent then filed an illegal dismissal case (NLRC-NCR Case No. 07-10950-13) on July 31, 2013, alleging he was barred from work on July 19, 2013. During the execution of the final NLRC Decision, petitioners voluntarily settled the monetary award, and respondent received P550,000.00 on December 23, 2013. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal case for lack of jurisdiction, a ruling affirmed by the NLRC in its Decision dated May 29, 2014, which deemed respondent to have opted to retire. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, ruling respondent was illegally dismissed. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent was illegally dismissed or is deemed to have voluntarily retired.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that respondent was not illegally dismissed but is deemed to have opted to retire. The petition was GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The NLRC Decision dated May 29, 2014 was REINSTATED. The Court held that respondent’s acceptance of the retirement benefits on December 23, 2013, pursuant to the final and executory NLRC Decision, consummated the agreement for his retirement. His act of filing the claim for retirement benefits on December 1, 2011, and subsequently accepting the monetary award, constituted a positive act showing his clear intention to retire. Therefore, he is deemed to have retired under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended.