Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 175 views

    Intel Technology Philippines V. NLRC G.R. No. 200575 February 5, 2014 J. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Karisse Viaje
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the respondent, Cabiles, is not entitled to retirement benefits from Intel Philippines. While Cabiles served over 9 years for Intel Philippines, he resigned to take a position with Intel Hong Kong before completing 10 years of service. This resignation terminated his employment with Intel Philippines. The Court also rejected the argument that the Hong Kong position was a secondment, noting that the indicators of employment - selection, payment, dismissal powers, and control - all shifted to Intel Hong Kong as of his start date there. Therefore, as Cabiles was effectively resigned from Intel Philippines before reaching 10 years of service, he is not entitled to retirement benefits from the company. The petition of Intel Philippines was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Intel Technology Philippines V. NLRC G.R. No. 200575 February 5, 2014 J. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Karisse Viaje
    175 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the respondent, Cabiles, is not entitled to retirement benefits from Intel Philippines. While Cabiles served over 9 years for Intel Philippines, he resigned to take a position with Intel Hong Kong before completing 10 years of service. This resignation terminated his employment with Intel Philippines. The Court also rejected the argument that the Hong Kong position was a secondment, noting that the indicators of employment - selection, payment, dismissal powers, and control - all shifted to Intel Hong Kong as of his start date there. Therefore, as Cabiles was effectively resigned from Intel Philippines before reaching 10 years of service, he is not entitled to retirement benefits from the company. The petition of Intel Philippines was granted.

    Original Description:

    Labor Code

    Original Title

    Intel v. Nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the respondent, Cabiles, is not entitled to retirement benefits from Intel Philippines. While Cabiles served over 9 years for Intel Philippines, he resigned to take a position with Intel Hong Kong before completing 10 years of service. This resignation terminated his employment with Intel Philippines. The Court also rejected the argument that the Hong Kong position was a secondment, noting that the indicators of employment - selection, payment, dismissal powers, and control - all shifted to Intel Hong Kong as of his start date there. Therefore, as Cabiles was effectively resigned from Intel Philippines before reaching 10 years of service, he is not entitled to retirement benefits from the company. The petition of Intel Philippines was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Intel Technology Philippines V. NLRC G.R. No. 200575 February 5, 2014 J. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Karisse Viaje
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the respondent, Cabiles, is not entitled to retirement benefits from Intel Philippines. While Cabiles served over 9 years for Intel Philippines, he resigned to take a position with Intel Hong Kong before completing 10 years of service. This resignation terminated his employment with Intel Philippines. The Court also rejected the argument that the Hong Kong position was a secondment, noting that the indicators of employment - selection, payment, dismissal powers, and control - all shifted to Intel Hong Kong as of his start date there. Therefore, as Cabiles was effectively resigned from Intel Philippines before reaching 10 years of service, he is not entitled to retirement benefits from the company. The petition of Intel Philippines was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES V.

    NLRC
    G.R. No. 200575 February 5, 2014
    J. Mendoza
    P files Petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA decision affirming the LA and NLRC
    decision.

    On the grounds That it erred in ruling that Intel is liable for respondent’s retirement benefits.

    Facts: Cabiles was an employee of Intel PH and at the time was on his 9th year when he was
    assigned to Intel Chengdu. While there, he was offered the position Finance Manager
    by Intel HK and before he accepted the offer, he sent a query to Intel PH regarding his
    clearance. He also asked if he will still be entitled to 10-year retirement benefits
    saying that he has already served 9 ½ years in the company. Intel PH replied that
    since he won’t be able to complete the 10-year requirement, he won’t be entitled to
    the benefits. He then pursued the HK job and resigned from Intel PH.

    After 7 months, he resigned in HK and about 2 years, he filed a complaint against Intel
    PH for non payment of retirement benefits.

    R presented to the That he was able to complete the 10 year requirement because his 7-month
    court the following employment in Intel HK was just a continuation of his job in Intel PH.
    proposition
    That said job was no different from his previous assignments in Arizona and Chengdu.

    P counter argued this That Cabiles clearly resigned from Intel PH as evidenced by the quitclaim he signed.
    proposition arguing Thus, since he wasn’t able to complete the 10 year requirement, he is not entitled to
    the retirement benefits.

    The LA Ruled in favor of Cabiles and ordered Intel PH to pay him HKD 419868.77 or its peso
    equivalent as retirement pay with legal interest.

    The NLRC Affirmed the LA decision.

    Whereas the CA Affirmed the LA and NLRC decision.

    Issue: Whether or not respondent is entitled to the retirement benefits.

    The SC Held that: No. Cabiles is not entitled to retirement benefits.

    The SC J. Mendoza That resignation is the formal relinquishment of an office,24 the overt act of which is
    said coupled with an intent to renounce. This intent could be inferred from the acts of the
    employee before and after the alleged resignation.

    The query Cabiles sent to Intel PH prior his HK job clearly showed two of his main
    concerns: a) clearance procedures; and b) the probability of getting his retirement
    pay despite the non-completion of the required 10 years of employment service.
    Beyond these concerns, however, was his acceptance of the fact that he would be
    ending his relationship with Intel Phil. as his employer.
    It Was Concluded Also, SC ruled that the respondent’s assertion that his HK job was a secondment
    contract is untenable.

    Under this The continuity, existence or termination of an employer-employee relationship in a


    circumstance typical secondment contract or any employment contract for that matter is measured
    by the following yardsticks:

    1. the selection and engagement of the employee;

    2. the payment of wages;

    3. the power of dismissal; and

    4. the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct.28

    Synthesis As applied, all of the above benchmarks ceased upon Cabiles’ assumption of duties
    with Intel HK on February 1, 2007. Intel HK became the new employer. It provided
    Cabiles his compensation. Cabiles then became subject to Hong Kong labor laws, and
    necessarily, the rights appurtenant thereto, including the right of Intel HK to fire him
    on available grounds. Lastly, Intel HK had control and supervision over him as its new
    Finance Manager. Evidently, Intel Phil. no longer had any control over him.

    Therefor Being effectively resigned from Intel PH before his 10th year anniversary, Cabiles is not
    entitled to retirement benefits.

    wherefore Petition is GRANTED. Respondent is ordered to return all the amounts he received
    from Intel PH pursuant to the writ of execution issued by the NLRC.

    You might also like