G.R. No. 99859 - PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PORPING REGALADO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent Phil. Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. to pay complainant his retirement pay at the rate of one-half month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one year of service." Petitioner appealed to the respondent National Labor Relations Commission, which in its now-assailed Decision [5] affirmed the arbiter: "An employee is entitled to retirement benefits even in the absence of a company retirement plan or collective bargaining agreement. This is the import of Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended, and implemented by Sections 13 and 14, Rule I, Book V (sic) of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Thus in a case, this Commission (1st Division) ruled: With respect to the award of retirement benefits, the contention of respondent-appellant that complainant is not entitled to his claim of retirement benefits or to his termination or separation pay because he was not retired under the bonafide retirement plan or under an individual or collective bargaining agreement or under company policy, is highly untenable because Rule I, Sections 13 and 14, Book VI of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code taken together clearly states that, with or without a retirement plan, individual or collective bargaining agreement or company policy, an employee who retires or is retired at the age of sixty (60) or over, is entitled to termination pay equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year. Moreover, if social justice and compassion to labor demand that termination pay be granted to victims of mechanization, redundancy, retrenchment to avoid losses and which are, from the standpoint of affected employees usually temporary contingency that do not prevent them from sooner or later being gainfully employed again, we feel that there is far greater need to cushion retired employees from the difficulties attendant to old age and permanent idleness. And in protecting retired employees, we are also protecting their dependents. This is the essence of social justice. (Angel T. Tolentino vs. Standard Wood Products Company, Inc., NLRC Case No. NCR-5-3847-82, NLRC First Division, Promulgated July 8, 1987.)" Petitioner moved for reconsideration but respondent Commission denied the same for lack of merit. Hence, this recourse. This Court issued a temporary restraining order on June 10, 1991, enjoining respondent Commission and its representatives from enforcing its January 10, 1991 Decision. In a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment dated July 25, 1991, the Solicitor General agreed with the petitioners position. The Issues Petitioner alleges that respondent Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion: A "x x x IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 283 AND ARTICLE 284 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED, AS THE LAW THAT PROVIDE FOR RETIREMENT PAY TO