CONSTRUCTION United Doctors v. Bernadas

(G.R. No.
209468, December 13, 2017)
UNITED DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER v. CESARIO BERNADAS,

REPRESENTED BY LEONILA BERNADAS
FACTS:
Cesario is a rank and file employee of United Doctors Medical Center, as a

housekeeper but eventually promoted to be a utility man. United Doctors Medical Center
and its rank and file employees had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), under
which rank and file employees were entitled to optional retirement benefits. Under the
optional retirement policy, an employee who has rendered at least 20 years of service is
entitled to optionally retire. The optional retirement pay is equal to a retiree's salary for
11 days per year of service.
On October 20, 2009, Cesario died from a "freak accident" while working in a
doctor's residence. He was 53 years old.
Leonila Bernadas (Leonila), representing her deceased husband, Cesario, filed a

Complaint for payment of retirement benefits, damages, and attorney's fees with the
National Labor Relations Commission. Leonila and her son also claimed and were able
to receive insurance proceeds of P180,000.00 under the CBA.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Leonila's Complaint, ruling that Cesario should have
applied for optional retirement benefits during his lifetime, the benefits being optional.
Since he did not apply for it, his beneficiaries were not entitled to claim his optional
retirement benefits.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the L.A.’s Decision holding that the optional
retirement plan was never presented in this case, casting a doubt on whether or not the
plan required an application for optional retirement benefits before an employee could
become entitled to them, inclined with the principle laid by the Constitution full
protection to labor.
M.R. was denied. On petition for certiorari to C.A., the latter sustained the NLRC’s
decision. Also, the M.R. was denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner argues that respondent Cesario's beneficiaries do not have legal capacity
to apply for Cesario's optional retirement benefits since respondent himself never applied
for it in his lifetime. It asserts that even assuming respondent Cesario was already
qualified to apply for optional retirement three (3) years prior to his death, he never did.
Thus, there would have been no basis for respondent Cesario's beneficiaries to be entitled
to his optional retirement benefits.
On the other hand, Leonila counters that had her husband died "under normal
circumstances," he would have applied for optional retirement benefits. That Cesario was
unable to apply before his death "is a procedural technicality" that should be set aside so
that "full protection to labor" is afforded and "the ends of social and compassionate
justice" are met.
ISSUE: Whether or not Leonila Bernadas as her husband's representative, may

claim his optional retirement benefits in consonance with whether or not Cesario
Bernadas is entitled to receive his optional retirement benefits despite his untimely
death.
HELD: YES.
The CBA between the parties provides:
ARTICLE XI
RETIREMENT AND SEVERANCE PAY
SECTION 1. RETIREMENT AND SEVERANCE PAY. The CENTER shall grant each
employee retirement and severance pay in accordance with law. It shall also continue
its present policy on optional retirement.
The terms and conditions of a CBA "constitute the law between the
parties." However, this CBA does not provide for the terms and conditions of the "present
policy on optional retirement." Leonila merely alleged before the Labor Arbiter that
petitioner "grants an employee a retirement or separation equivalent to eleven (11) days
per year of service after serving for at least twenty (20) years," which was not disputed
by petitioner. Therefore, doubt arises as to what petitioner's optional retirement package
actually entails.
It is settled that doubts must be resolved in favor of labor. Moreover, "retirement

laws should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to
be benefited and all doubts as to the intent of the law should be resolved in favor of the
retiree to achieve its humanitarian purposes."
Petitioner's optional retirement plan is premised on length of service, not upon

reaching a certain age. It rewards loyalty and continued service by granting an employee
an earlier age to claim his or her retirement benefits even if the employee has not reached
his or her twilight years. It would be the height of inequity to withhold respondent
Cesario's retirement benefits despite being qualified to receive it, simply because he died
before he could apply for it. In any case, the CBA does not mandate that an application
must first be filed by the employee before the right to the optional retirement benefits
may vest. Thus, this ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the retiree.
Retirement benefits are the property interests of the retiree and his or her
beneficiaries. The CBA does not prohibit the employee's beneficiaries from claiming
retirement benefits if the retiree dies before the proceeds could be released. Even
compulsory retirement plans provide mechanisms for a retiree's beneficiaries to claim
any pension due to the retiree. Thus, Leonila, being the surviving spouse of respondent
Cesario, is entitled to claim the optional retirement benefits on his behalf.

CONSTRUCTION United Doctors v. Bernadas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTRUCTION United Doctors v. Bernadas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTRUCTION United Doctors v. Bernadas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(G.R. No.

209468, December 13, 2017)

UNITED DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER v. CESARIO BERNADAS,

Cesario is a rank and file employee of United Doctors Medical Center, as a

Leonila Bernadas (Leonila), representing her deceased husband, Cesario, filed a

ISSUE: Whether or not Leonila Bernadas as her husband's representative, may

The CBA between the parties provides:

It is settled that doubts must be resolved in favor of labor. Moreover, "retirement

Petitioner's optional retirement plan is premised on length of service, not upon

You might also like