G.R. No. 185346 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, VS. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO. [G.R. NO. 185442] MIGUELITO M. LAZARO, VS. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK AND TEODORO O. ARCENAS, JR., BF RETIREMENT FUND AND PERFECTO YASAY JR. (IN SUBSTITUTION OF DECEASED CONRADO BANZON).D E C I S I O N

Ruling

Accordingly, the combined issues presented for our resolution are as follows: Whether the CA gravely erred in granting retirement pay differentials to Lazaro; Whether the CA committed grievous error in dismissing Lazaros claims for attorneys fees and profit shares; and Whether the CA committed grievous error in not addressing Lazaros claims for a one-day salary differential and damages consisting of moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and expenses of suit. Ruling of the Court Retirement Pay Differentials In essence, Banco Filipino maintains that the seven-year period when it was under liquidation should not be credited in computing Lazaros retirement pay because, during that period, the bank was considered closed. It cites, as further basis, G.R. No. 165367 pertaining to Banco Filipino Staff Association v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank [18] to support the exclusion of the liquidation period. This contention is without merit, for it inaccurately portrays the status of a bank under liquidation. In Philippine Veterans Bank v. NLRC , [19] this Court explained that banks under liquidation retain their legal personality. In fact, even if they are prohibited from conducting regular banking business, it is necessary that debts owed to them be collected. [20] Lazaro performed the duty of foreclosing debts in favor of Banco Filipino. It cannot rightfully disclaim Lazaros work that benefitted it. Consequently, we find no grievous error committed by the CA in crediting the years covered by the liquidation period as part of Lazaros retirement pay. With respect to Banco Filipino Staff Association v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, which Banco Filipino cites in order to prove that this Court had earlier excluded the seven-year period of closure from the length of service of the banks employees, the CA read the case correctly; i.e. that this Court did not categorically exclude the seven-year period of closure from the length of service of Banco Filipino employees. [21] Thus, the bank cannot use our pronouncement in the said case to defeat Lazaros claim for retirement pay differential. Notably, Lazaro remains unsatisfied with the award of retirement pay differential. He seeks these further adjustments: (1) the basis for the computation of his retirement pay should be increased from P38,000 to P50,000; and (2) the retirement pay differential should include 8 years, and not just 7 years and 7 months of his service. With respect to the claim that the base for computing the retirement pay should be P50,000 and not P38,000, the courts a quo found that since the applicable Rules of the Banco Filipino Retirement Fund state that the computation shall be for each completed month of service, [22] Lazaro who did not complete his services for December 1995 cannot claim the salary increase granted, when he has already left Banco Filipino, and credit it to his retirement pay. Conversely, Lazaro argues that the Rules of the Banco Fili