Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 728 views

    DLSU v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, Feb. 13, 2017

    Uploaded by

    12345678
    This case involves a part-time lecturer, Bernardo, who was informed he could no longer teach at De La Salle-Araneta University (DLS-AU) due to the school's retirement age limit of 75. Bernardo claimed retirement benefits after 27 years of employment. DLS-AU argued Bernardo was not entitled to benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) part-time employees can be entitled to retirement benefits if they meet requirements like age and years of service; and (2) Bernardo's cause of action did not prescribe as it accrued when DLS-AU refused to pay benefits in 2004, and he filed his complaint within 3 years of that date.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DLSU v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, Feb. 13, 2017

    Uploaded by

    12345678
    728 views2 pages
    This case involves a part-time lecturer, Bernardo, who was informed he could no longer teach at De La Salle-Araneta University (DLS-AU) due to the school's retirement age limit of 75. Bernardo claimed retirement benefits after 27 years of employment. DLS-AU argued Bernardo was not entitled to benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) part-time employees can be entitled to retirement benefits if they meet requirements like age and years of service; and (2) Bernardo's cause of action did not prescribe as it accrued when DLS-AU refused to pay benefits in 2004, and he filed his complaint within 3 years of that date.

    Original Description:

    DLSU v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, Feb. 13, 2017

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a part-time lecturer, Bernardo, who was informed he could no longer teach at De La Salle-Araneta University (DLS-AU) due to the school's retirement age limit of 75. Bernardo claimed retirement benefits after 27 years of employment. DLS-AU argued Bernardo was not entitled to benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) part-time employees can be entitled to retirement benefits if they meet requirements like age and years of service; and (2) Bernardo's cause of action did not prescribe as it accrued when DLS-AU refused to pay benefits in 2004, and he filed his complaint within 3 years of that date.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    728 views2 pages

    DLSU v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, Feb. 13, 2017

    Uploaded by

    12345678
    This case involves a part-time lecturer, Bernardo, who was informed he could no longer teach at De La Salle-Araneta University (DLS-AU) due to the school's retirement age limit of 75. Bernardo claimed retirement benefits after 27 years of employment. DLS-AU argued Bernardo was not entitled to benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) part-time employees can be entitled to retirement benefits if they meet requirements like age and years of service; and (2) Bernardo's cause of action did not prescribe as it accrued when DLS-AU refused to pay benefits in 2004, and he filed his complaint within 3 years of that date.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DLSU v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, Feb.

    13, 2017

    LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
    Facts: Bernardo was a part-time professional lecturer at De La Salle-Araneta University
    (DLS-AU). On November 8, 2003, DLS-AU informed Bernardo through a telephone
    call that he could not teach at the school anymore as the school was implementing the
    retirement age limit for its faculty members. As he was already 75 years old, Bernardo
    had no choice but to retire. He claimed retirement benefits after 27 years of
    employment.
    However, the petitioner countered that Bernardo was not entitled to any kind of
    separation pay or benefits under DLS-AU's policy and CBA. Neither was DLS-AU
    mandated by law to pay Bernardo retirement benefits.

    Assuming arguendo that Bernardo was entitled to retirement benefits, he should


    have claimed the same upon.reaching the age of 65 years old. Under Article 291 of the
    Labor Code, as amended, all money claims arising from employer-employee relations
    shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrues.

    ISSUE 1: Are part-time employees entitled to retirement benefits?


    Ruling: Yes. For the availment of the retirement benefits under Article 302 [287] of the
    Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, the following requisites must
    concur: ( 1) the employee has reached the age of 60 years for optional retirement or 65
    years for compulsory retirement; (2) the employee has served at least five years in the
    establishment; and (3) there is no retirement plan or other applicable agreement
    providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment. Bernardo - being
    75 years old at the time of his retirement, having served DLS-AU for a total of 27 years,
    and not being covered by the grant of retirement benefits in the CBA is qualified to
    avail himself of retirement benefits under said statutory provision, i.e., equivalent to
    one-half month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six months being
    considered as one whole year.

    ISSUE 2: Did Bernardo's cause of action for his retirement benefits had already
    prescribed when Bernardo filed his complaint only 10 years later after reaching the
    compulsory retirement age of 65?
    Ruling: No. the cause of action for Bernardo's retirement benefits only accrued after
    the refusal of DLS-AU to pay him the same as expressed in a letter dated February 12,
    2004. Hence, Bernardo'scomplaint, filed with the NLRC on February 26, 2004, was
    filed within the three-year prescriptive period provided under Article 291 of the Labor
    Code.

    You might also like