Villena v. National Labor Relations Commission

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

This petition seeks to annul the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated June 15, 1989 in NLRC NCR Case No. 06-02151-87 entitled, "Sabas Villena vs. B.L.T.B. Co., Max Potenciano and Candido Potenciano," ordering the company to pay the petitioner retirement benefits equivalent to one month basic salary for every year of service in the company as provided in the CBA. Sabas B. Villena started working with Batangas, Laguna and Tayabas Bus Company (BLTBCo.) as a bus conductor when he was only twenty-five years old.

He rose from the ranks through dint it of hard work and dedicated service for thirty-two (32) years until he became the traffic operations manager in 1987 at the age of fifty seven (57), directing the traffic operations with three traffic supervisors under him, who in turn, supervised drivers, inspectors and conductors on all the bus routes covering the major provinces of the Southern Tagalog region. Villena's work required continous service on the road from dawn to dusk, hardly allowing him free time even on holidays. On April 30, 1987, at around 8:30 in the morning, he received the schock of his life when a letter was handed to him by the company, advising that he was compulsorily retired from the service effective immediately The letter reads: April 24, 1987 MR.

VILLENA B. SABAS 13 NOBLE EXT. BATANGAS CITY 438 MANAGER, TRAFFIC Dear Mr. SABAS: Sad to state, our company has been incurring big losses since 1985. In our determination to keep the company going, we have exerted the best of our efforts and talents to solve the problem but still the losses continued to grow to the extent that the whole company is now endangered.

Rather than allow the company to die and deprive the families of more than 2,000 employees of then, source of livelihood, the Management has decided to take decisive measures to prevent further losses by cutting down the expenses and improving its operations at the least cost. You have been with us for more than 20 years. We have valued your services and have already considered you as a member of the BLTBCo.

family. Deep within our heart, it is painful just to think of losing you from our sight even for a moment. But with our hands chained by the burdens imposed by our Collective Bargaining Agreement, our choice of solutions have been narrowed down to just a few, one of which is to avail of the compulsory retirement provisions of our CBA.

We, therefore, regret that much as we wish to retain you, we are forced by the circumstances to RETIRE you from the service effective April 30, 1987. We want to emphasize that your long service with the company is engraved in the history of BLTBCo. Rest assured that after getting your retirement benefits, you are still welcome to visit us.

We are still hopeful that as soon as we overcome the present economic crisis, we may again take you in so that you may be regarded for your sacrifice of these items. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) Candido A. Potenciano V-P Administration (Annex A, p.34, Rollo.) Villena was verbally advised to turn over his service vehicle, collect all his belongings, and leave the company premises on the same day. Hurt dejected and confused, he meekly left the company premises and waited for advice regarding the "benefits"

mentioned in the letter which failed to mention how much he would receive. At the time he was "compulsorily retired," Villena was the following remunerations: Basic salary P1,750.00 Allowance (mandatory) 510.00 Company Assistance 1,490.00 P3,750.00 That amount was in addition to per diems and representation allowance.

After one month had elapsed and he did not hear from the company, Villena sought legal counsel and assistance. On May 27, 1987, Villena's lawyer wrote the company a letter demanding clarification of the terms of Villena's "retirement" from the service, and raising the following points: 1.

The ground upon which you base Mr. Villena's compulsory retirement is the big and continuous losses suffered by your company. Thus, the retrenchment of personnel Under Philippine law, a company is required to give at least one (1) month notice to the employee before the intended date of termination for this ground for separation. In this particular case, the notice of termination was given to Mr. Villena only in the morning of April 30, 1987 , the very same day his termination was to take effect.

2. Mr. Villena is a managerial employee who is excluded from the bargaining unit as defined in your company's CBA. Notwithstanding said exclusion, you are using the CBA compulsory retirement provision to apply to him in this particular instance.

3. Your letter did not state the amount of separation benefits and other payments that Mr. Villena will be given due to this separation. Neither did you inform him the time within which he can expect said payment to be given.

All of these amount to violation of Mr. Villena's rights as an employee. It is made worse by the fact that he has served your company with utmost dedication and loyalty for the PAST 32 YEARS. We strongly protest your company's blatant disregard of his rights as an employee and dignity as a person!

(p. 35, Rollo.) BLTB Co. ignored the letter, prompting Villena to file a complaint for illegal dismissal in the NLRC. During the conciliation proceedings, the company admitted its omission to serve the required notice of termination and offered to pay P66,370.00 computed on the basis of Villena's salary, as follows: Retirement Pay ...................................................

P62,620.00 (one month's basic salary for every year of service, including integration of existing wage orders to latest salary) One Month salary for the month of May, 1987 in lieu of the prior 30 day notice.................... P3,750.00