Cited Laws
accordingly, respondent Antonio Labirua directed respondent companys Bacolod office in a telegram ... to inform the complainants of the approval; that thereafter, all the complainants were paid termination pay and other benefits including financial assistance in the following aggregate amount to wit: M. Castellano received P47, 954.16 as retirement pay, P5,635.00 as financial assistance, P15,507.18 as unused vacation and sick leaves and P987.28 as 13th month pay; Complainant G. Z. Adad received P93,450.01 as retirement pay, P10,465.00 as financial assistance, P21, 166.69 as unused vacation and sick leaves and P1,038.31 as 13th month pay; complainant G. A. Teddy, Jr. received P68,828.32 as retirement pay, P8,100.00 as financial assistance, P18,036.74 as unused vacation and leaves and P987.68 as 13th month pay; Complainant E.Y. Torres, Jr. received P75,225.00 as retirement pay, P5,935.00 as financial assistance, P29,817.56 as unused vacation and sick leaves and P1,462.68 as 13th month pay; Complainant Manuel G. Chu received P93,353.32 as retirement pay, P8,900.00 as financial assistance, P24,853.23 as unused vacation and sick leaves and P1,219.15 as 13th month pay; that on April 16, 1984, each complainant voluntarily executed a Release and Receipt ... acknowledging receipt of the aforestated amounts and irrevocably and unconditionally released respondent San Miguel Corporation from any claim or demand whatsoever in law and equity which each complainant may have in connection with their employment; that on July 25, 1984, complainants wrote the respondent corporations chairman of the board pleading for additional separation benefits ... contending that supervisors were awarded pay increases retroactive January 1, 1984; that on August 29, 1984, the company thru its Vice-President and Division Manager, Jose B. Lugay clarified in a letter ... that the pay increases were granted on selective basis with merit and performance as the criteria and that all the complainants were already extended financial assistance; that subsequently, all the complainants filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal; that the dismissal was not involuntary much less illegal; respondents vehemently deny that they used force and intimidation in dismissing the complainants; that in the series of communication with the respondents, it is evidenced (sic) that their collective and paramount concern was to seek further termination benefits after they had applied to be retrenched, received corresponding benefits and executed their respective release and receipt of payment; that with respect to complainant Chu, he is bound by reasonable rules and regulations relative to the terms and conditions of his employment; that one such rule is respondent corporations 1978 Retirement and Death Benefit plan and which was later amended reducing the period of service to 15 years; that it was pursuant to this plan that the respondent corporation exercised its option to terminate complainant