ENRIQUE RAZON, JR. and METROPORT SERVICES, INC., company, the Marina Port Services, Inc.

arina Port Services, Inc., which hired private

petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION respondent. The latter has since been connected with said firm.
and NICOLAS S. GARZOTA, respondents.
Acting on private respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal and
FACTS: unpaid retirement benefits, the Labor Arbiter, on January 30, 1987,
rendered the following decision: “WHEREFORE, premises considered,
In this petition for certiorari, petitioners Enrique Razon, Jr. and respondent Metro Port Services, Inc. or Enrique Razon, Jr., in case of
Metroport Services, Inc. seek to set aside the resolution dated August the company’s failure to pay, is hereby ordered to pay complainant
28, 1987 of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming the Nicolas S. Gartoza the following amounts: P60,000.00—for retirement
decision of the Labor Arbiter which ordered petitioners to pay private pay 60,000.00—for loyalty bonus 11,400.00—cash conversion of
respondent Nicolas S. Garzota his retirement pay, loyalty bonus and accrued vacation leave, or a total of P131,400.00.”
cash conversion of accrued vacation leave in the total amount of
P131,400.00. Since 1966, private respondent had been employed by On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission sustained the
petitioner company then known as E. Razon, Inc. Sometime in 1979, Labor Arbiter in its resolution of August 28, 1987. Hence, the instant
Alfredo Romualdez, the youngest brother of the then First Lady, petition. Petitioners contend that the NLRC gravely abused its
Imelda R. Marcos, acquired control of E. Razon, Inc. and renamed it discretion when it sustained the grant of retirement benefits to
Metroport Services, Inc. On February 26, 1986, after the February private respondent and held Enrique Razon, Jr. solidarily liable with
Revolution, petitioners regained control of the company. On February Metroport Services, Inc. for the payment thereof.
28, 1986, because of failing health and having qualified for
compulsory retirement at age 65, private respondent, then the ISSUE:
company’s chief accountant, submitted a letter request for retirement. Whether a dismissed employee is entitle to a retirement pay.
Petitioners withheld action on said request pending completion of the
audit of company books undertaken by the accounting firm of Sycip, HELD:
Gorres and Velayo. In the course of such audit, petitioners discovered
It is the perception of petitioners that management is vested with
that the following books of account allegedly in the custody of private
discretion to approve or disapprove an employee’s claim for
respondent as chief accountant were missing: [a] general ledgers for
retirement benefits. They anchor this view of Article II (B) of the
the years 1981 and 1983; [b] cash disbursement books for 1981 to
Retirement Plan which states that “(a)ny official and employee who is
1983; [c] cash receipt books for 1981 to 1983; [d] bills register for
65 years old, and upon discretion of management, shall be qualified
1981 to 1983; [e] cash vouchers for 1981 to 1984; [f] journal
or subject to compulsory retirement from the company with benefits
vouchers for 1981 to 1984; and [g] sales register for 1983 to 1984.
as provided in this plan.” Thus, when petitioners discovered the loss
As a consequence thereof, petitioner Enrique Razon, Jr. issued on
of vital books of account while in private respondent’s custody and
March 19, 1986 a memorandum terminating the services of private
found him “guilty of breach of trust as chief accountant”, they claim
respondent on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Meanwhile,
to have a valid ground to terminate private respondent’s services and
the Philippine Ports Authority awarded the management and
as a consequence to deny his claim for retirement pay. It must be
operation of the arrastre services at the South Harbor to a new
stressed that the words “upon the discretion of management” are not
synonymous with absolute or unlimited discretion. In other words, JOSE T. CAPILI, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
management discretion may not be exercised arbitrarily or COMMISSION, and UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, respondents.
capriciously especially with regards to the implementation of the
retirement plan. We believe that upon acceptance of employment, a FACTS:
contractual relationship was established giving private respondent an Petitioner Jose T. Capili, Jr., was employed by private respondent
enforceable vested interest in the retirement fund. Verily, the University of Mindanao (hereafter, UM) as a college instructor in
retirement scheme became an integral part of his employment November 1982. On 2 July 1993, the private respondent informed the
package and the benefits to be derived therefrom constituted as it petitioner that under the law and UM’s retirement program he would
were a continuing consideration for services rendered, as well as an be eligible for retirement when he would reach the age of 60 years on
effective inducement for remaining with the firm. 18 August 1993. In his answer of 5 August 1993, the petitioner
Having rendered twenty years of service with Metroport Services, informed UM that pursuant to Section 4, Rule II, Book VI of the Rules
Inc., it can be said that private respondent has already acquired a Implementing the Labor Code, he was not opting to retire but would
vested right to the retirement fund, a right which can only be continue to serve until he reaches the compulsory retirement age of
withheld upon a clear showing of good and compelling reasons. 65. In its reply of 10 August 1993 to the petitioner, UM reiterated its
position that under the university’s retirement plan, it could retire
Thus, the resulting dismissal of private respondent was in itself him. It argued that under Section 4 cited by the petitioner, the
marked by arbitrariness and lack of due process. Petitioners cannot employee has the option only in the absence of a retirement plan.
now be allowed to use that as their legal excuse for denying the Perceiving the school’s insistence as constructive dismissal, and
employee’s legitimate claim for retirement pay. In further support of recalling at least four other faculty members who were allowed to
their refusal to give private respondent his retirement benefits, teach beyond their sixtieth birth anniversary, the petitioner filed a
petitioners argued that the discharged employee impliedly withdrew complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch
his intention to retire when he joined Marina Port Services, Inc. The No. XI of the NLRC in Davao City. He sought his reinstatement to his
fact that private respondent sought employment elsewhere should not former position without loss of seniority rights with full back wages,
hinder him from claiming his retirement benefits. It is an inexorable wage differential, 13th month differential, moral and exemplary
fact that at 65 years, he reached the mandatory age for retirement damages, and attorney’s fees. In its position paper, UM invoked
and, therefore, qualified to retire. We have here an ironic situation Article 287 of the Labor Code which provides that any employee may
where instead of enjoying the fruits of his retirement, private be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the
respondent was forced to seek reemployment for his survival. Surely, collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment
private respondent does not deserve such a pathetic end to his long contract. It contended that it has a retirement plan, known as the
and faithful service with petitioners. University of Mindanao & Associated Enterprises Retirement Plan,
under which it could retire the petitioner upon his reaching the age of
Eli’s Di Disenteng Opinion: Nagtrabaho nang matagal sayo yung tao tapos di
60. UM also cited Policy Instruction No. 25 issued by the Secretary of
mo igagrant ng Retirement Pay. Anong karapatan mong ipagdamot ang
Labor, which provides that in the absence of a retirement plan any
bagay na deserve niya? Gusto mo bang ma-TULFO?
teacher or other employee in a private educational institution may
retire or be retired from the service upon reaching the age of 60
years. In his position paper the petitioner maintained that private ISSUE:
respondent’s retirement plan applies only to members thereof,
pursuant to Articles II and III of its Rules and Regulations, and that 1. Whether or not an employee can be compelled to retire at the
since he is not a member of the Plan, he is not covered by it. He age of sixty years.
further contended that Policy Instruction No. 25, issued on 1 June 2. Whether or not the subsequent acceptance of retirement
1977, was abrogated by Republic Act No. 7641, which took effect on benefits estops an employee from pursuing his complaint
7 January 199 3; and that pursuant to the new Rule II, Book VI of the questioning the validity of his forced retirement.
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which also took effect
on 7 January 1993, he has the option whether or not to retire upon RULING:
attaining the age of 60 years.
1. No, an employee cannot be compelled to retire at the age of
On 18 April 1994, Labor Arbiter Newton Sancho held for UM and sixty years in the absence of a provision on retirement in the
dismissed the complaint. CBA or if the employer has no retirement plan.

The petitioner appealed from the decision to the respondent Under the Labor Code, as amended by R. A. No. 7641, the option of
Commission on 10 May 1994, or thirteen days after he received the the employer to retire an employee at age 60 no longer exists. Under
Labor Arbiter’s decision. He argued that the Labor Arbiter erred in the present rule, the option to retire upon reaching the age of 60
ruling that private respondent’s retirement plan applies to all its years or more but not beyond 65 is the exclusive prerogative of the
employees and that he had been fully paid his monetary claims. The employee if there is no provision on retirement in the CBA or any
private respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for having been filed agreement or if the employer has no retirement plan.
out of time, as the same should have been filed within ten days from
In this case, UM failed to show that Capili was a member of the
petitioner’s receipt of the Arbiter’s decision, or, at the latest, on 7 May
school’s retirement plan. The Court finds that it is not applicable to all
1994. On 21 November 1994, the private respondent filed a
employees of UM and its associated enterprises. It applies only to
Manifestation with Motion 10 alleging that on 6 October 1994, the
those who opted to become members thereof.
petitioner “received his retirement pay and other accrued benefits”
due from the private respondent, thus making the appeal moot and
academic. The petitioner filed a Counter-Manifestation wherein he
alleged that his “partial acceptance” of retirement benefits did not 2. Yes, the acceptance of retirement benefits will estop the
render the case moot and academic, and that having “long and employee from pursuing his case. By accepting the retirement
unjustly been denied of his retirement benefits since August 18, 1993 benefits, the employee is deemed to have opted to retire
[he could not] be expected to remain idle.” under the present rule stated above. This could only mean
that he has already acceded to his retirement, effective on
During the pendency of his appeal with the NLRC, he received full such date—when he reached the age of 60 years.
payment of his retirement benefits.
Eli’s Di Disenteng Opinion: Bat mo patitigilin kung ayaw niya. LUH. Pero
shunga din eh, ayaw tumigil, pero tumanggap ng benefits.
ALPHA C. JACULBE, petitioner, vs. SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY, 1. Whether respondent’s retirement plan imposing automatic
respondent. retirement after 35 years of service contravene the security of
tenure clause in the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code?
FACTS:
2. Whether respondent committed illegal dismissal by retiring
Sometime in 1958, petitioner began working for respondent’s petitioner solely by reason of such provision in its retirement plan?
university medical center as a nurse. In a letter dated December
3, 1992, respondent, through its Human Resources Development  
Office, informed petitioner that she was approaching her 35th
year of service with the university and was due for automatic RULING:
retirement on November 18, 1993, at which time she would be 57 1. Retirement plans allowing employers to retire employees who
years old. This was pursuant to respondent’s retirement plan for are less than the compulsory retirement age of 65 are not per se
its employees which provided that its members could be repugnant to the constitutional guaranty of security of tenure.
automatically retired “upon reaching the age of 65 or after 35 Article 287 of the Labor Code provides:
years of uninterrupted service to the university.” Respondent
required certain documents in connection with petitioner’s ART. 287. Retirement – Any employee may be retired upon
impending retirement. A brief exchange of letters between reaching the retirement age established in the collective
petitioner and respondent followed. Petitioner emphatically bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.
insisted that the compulsory retirement under the plan was xxx
tantamount to a dismissal and pleaded with respondent to be
By its express language, the Labor Code permits employers and
allowed to work until the age of 60 because this was the minimum
employees to fix the applicable retirement age at below 60 years.
age at which she could qualify for SSS pension. But respondent
stood pat on its decision to retire her, citing “company policy.” On However, after reviewing the assailed decision together with the
November 15, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint in the National rules and regulations of respondent’s retirement plan, we find that
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for “termination of service the plan runs afoul of the constitutional guaranty of security of
with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order.” On tenure contained in Article XIII, also known as the provision on
November 18, 1993, respondent compulsorily retired petitioner. Social Justice and Human Rights.
After the parties submitted their position papers, the labor arbiter
rendered a decision finding respondent guilty of illegal dismissal The CA, in ruling against petitioner, premised its decision to
and ordered that petitioner be reinstated and paid full backwages. uphold the retirement plan on her voluntary participation therein:
On appeal, however, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s
The petitioner in this case may, however, argue that the
decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC
Pantranco case is not applicable in the case at bar as the
likewise denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In the
controversy in the said case involves a compulsory retirement on
assailed decision and resolution, the CA affirmed the NLRC
the basis of the length of service rendered by the employee as
ISSUE: agreed in an existing CBA, whereas in the present case, the
private respondent compulsorily retired the petitioner not based Membership in the Plan starts on the day a person is hired on a
on a CBA but on the retirement scheme provided for in the private full-time basis by the University.
respondent’s retirement plan. Nonetheless, this argument must
fail. The contract fixing for retirement age as allowed under Article SECTION 3 – TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP
287 of the Labor Code does not exclusively refer to CBA which Termination of membership in the Plan shall be upon the death of
provides for an agreed retirement age. The said provision the member, resignation or termination of employee’s contract by
explicitly allows, as well, other applicable employment contract to the University, or retirement from the University.
fix retirement age.
According to the assailed decision, respondent’s retirement plan
The records disclose that the private respondent’s Retirement Plan “had been in effect for more than 30 years.” What was not
has been in effect for more than 30 years. The said plan is pointed out, however, was that the retirement plan came into
deemed integrated into the employment contract between private being in 197018 or 12 years after petitioner started working for
respondent and its employees as evidenced by the latter’s respondent. In short, it was not part of the terms of employment
voluntary contribution through monthly salary deductions. to which petitioner agreed when she started working for
Previous retirees have already enjoyed the benefits of the respondent. Neither did it become part of those terms shortly
retirement plan, and ever since the said plan was effected, no thereafter, as the CA would have us believe.
questions or disagreement have been raised, until the same was
made to apply to the petitioner. xxx Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a
voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee
The problem with this line of reasoning is that a perusal of the whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age agrees to sever
rules and regulations of the plan shows that participation therein his or her employment with the former.
was not voluntary at all.
In this case, neither the CA nor the respondent cited any
Rule III of the plan, on membership, stated: agreement, collective or otherwise, to justify the latter’s
SECTION 1 – MEMBERSHIP imposition of the early retirement age in its retirement plan,
opting instead to harp on petitioner’s alleged “voluntary”
All full-time Filipino employees of the University will automatically contributions to the plan, which was simply untrue. The truth was
become members of the Plan, provided, however, that those who that petitioner had no choice but to participate in the plan, given
have retired from the University, even if rehired, are no longer that the only way she could refrain from doing so was to resign or
eligible for membership in the Plan. A member who continues to lose her job. It is axiomatic that employer and employee do not
serve the University cannot withdraw from the Plan. stand on equal footing, a situation which often causes an
employee to act out of need instead of any genuine acquiescence
xxx xxx xxx to the employer. This was clearly just such an instance.
SECTION 2 – EFFECTIVITY OF MEMBERSHIP Not only was petitioner still a good eight years away from the
compulsory retirement age but she was also still fully capable of
discharging her duties as shown by the fact that respondent’s LOURDES A. CERCADO, petitioner, vs. UNIPROM, INC.,
board of trustees seriously considered rehiring her after the respondent.
effectivity of her “compulsory retirement.”
FACTS:
2.   Yes.
Petitioner Lourdes A. Cercado (Cercado) started working for
As already stated, an employer is free to impose a retirement age respondent UNIPROM, Inc. (UNIPROM) on December 15, 1978 as
less than 65 for as long as it has the employees’ consent. Stated a ticket seller assigned at Fiesta Carnival, Araneta Center, Quezon
conversely, employees are free to accept the employer’s offer to City. Later on, she was promoted as cashier and then as clerk
lower the retirement age if they feel they can get a better deal typist. On April 1, 1980, UNIPROM instituted an Employees’ Non-
with the retirement plan presented by the employer. Thus, having Contributory Retirement Plan4 which provides that any participant
terminated petitioner solely on the basis of a provision of a with twenty (20) years of service, regardless of age, may be
retirement plan which was not freely assented to by her, retired at his option or at the option of the company. On January
respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal. 1, 2001, UNIPROM amended the retirement plan in compliance
with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7641.5 Under the revised retirement
At this point, reinstatement is out of the question. Petitioner is plan, UNIPROM reserved the option to retire employees who were
now 71 years old and therefore well over the statutory qualified to retire under the program. Sometime in December
compulsory retirement age. For this reason, we grant her 2000, UNIPROM implemented a company-wide early retirement
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. It is also for this reason program for its 41 employees, including herein petitioner, who, at
that we modify the award of backwages in her favor, to be that time, was 47 years old, with 22 years of continuous service to
computed from the time of her illegal dismissal on November 18, the company. She was offered an early retirement package
1993 up to her compulsory retirement age. amounting to P171,982.90, but she rejected the same. UNIPROM
Eli’s Di Disenteng Opinion: Haba na nga ng ruling, cocomment pako. exercised its option under the retirement plan, and decided to
Less talk, less mistake. retire Cercado effective at the end of business hours on February
15, 2001. A check of even date in the amount of P100,811.70,
representing her retirement benefits under the regular retirement
package, was issued to her. Cercado refused to accept the check.
UNIPROM nonetheless pursued its decision and Cercado was no
longer given any work assignment after February 15, 2001. This
prompted Cercado to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before
the Labor Arbiter (LA), alleging, among others, that UNIPROM did
not have a bona fide retirement plan, and that even if there was,
she did not consent thereto. For its part, respondent UNIPROM
averred that Cercado was automatically covered by the retirement
plan when she agreed to the company’s rules and regulations, and
that her retirement from service was a valid exercise of a
management prerogative. After submission of the parties’ position Hence, consistent with the Courts ruling in Jaculbe, having
papers, the LA rendered a decision7 finding petitioner to be terminated petitioner merely on the basis of a provision in the
illegally dismissed. Respondent company was ordered to reinstate retirement plan which was not freely assented to by her,
her with payment of full backwages. The National Labor Relations UNIPROM is guilty of illegal dismissal. Petitioner is thus entitled to
Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA’s decision, adding that there reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to full
was no evidence that Cercado consented to the alleged retirement backwages computed from the time of her illegal dismissal in
plan of UNIPROM or that she was notified thereof. On certiorari, February 16, 2001 until the actual date of her reinstatement. If
the CA set aside the decisions of the LA and the NLRC. reinstatement is no longer possible because the position that
petitioner held no longer exists, UNIPROM shall pay backwages as
ISSUE Whether or not the respondent’s company policy was a computed above, plus, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay
bona fide retirement plan.  equivalent to one-month pay for every year of service. This is
HELD: We disagree with the CAs conclusion that the retirement consistent with the preponderance of jurisprudence relative to the
plan is part of petitioners employment contract with respondent. award of separation pay in case reinstatement is no longer
It must be underscored that petitioner was hired in 1978 or 2 feasible.
years before the institution of UNIPROMs retirement plan in 1980. Eli’s Di Disenteng Opinion: Bakit kasi pinipilit paalisin yung taong ayaw
Logically, her employment contract did not include the retirement pang umalis. GIGIL AKO.
plan, much less the early retirement age option contained therein.

We also cannot subscribe to respondents submission that

petitioners consent to the retirement plan may be inferred from
her signature in the personnel action forms containing the
phrase: Employee hereby expressly acknowledges receipt of and
undertakes to abide by the provisions of his/her Job Description,
Company Code of Conduct and such other policies, guidelines,
rules and regulations the company may prescribe.

It should be noted that the personnel action forms relate to the

increase in petitioners salary at various periodic intervals. To
conclude that her acceptance of the salary increases was also,
simultaneously, a concurrence to the retirement plan would be
tantamount to compelling her to agree to the latter. Moreover,
voluntary and equivocal acceptance by an employee of an early
retirement age option in a retirement plan necessarily connotes
that her consent specifically refers to the plan or that she has at
least read the same when she affixed her conformity thereto.
CAINTA CATHOLIC SCHOOL and MSGR. MARIANO T. HELD
BALBAGO, petitioners, vs. CAINTA CATHOLIC SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES UNION (CCSEU), respondent. The SC held that the termination of employment of Llagas and
Javier was valid, arising as it did from a management prerogative
FACTS: granted by the mutually-negotiated CBA between the School and
the Union.
On 15 October 1993, petitioner school retired Llagas and Javier,
President and Vice-president of respondent union, respectively, Pursuant to the existing CBA, the School has the option to retire
who had rendered more than twenty (20) years of continuous an employee upon reaching the age limit of sixty (60) or after
service, pursuant to Section 2, Article X of the CBA, to wit: having rendered at least twenty (20) years of service to the
School, the last three (3) years of which must be continuous.
An employee may be retired, either upon application by the Retirement is different specie of termination of employment from
employee himself or by the decision of the Director of the School, dismissal for just or authorized causes under Articles 282 and 283
upon  reaching  the  age  of  sixty (60) or  after  having of the Labor Code. While in all three cases, the employee to be
rendered at  least twenty (20) years of service to the School the terminated may be unwilling to part from service, there are
last three (3) years of which must be continuous. eminently higher standards to be met by the employer validly
Because of the foregoing, the union filed a Notice of Strike with exercising the prerogative to dismiss for just or authorized causes.
the NCMB and later staged a strike and picketed in the school’s In those two instances, it is indispensable that the employer
entrance. Later, the union filed a complaint for unfair labor establish the existence of just or authorized causes for dismissal
practice against petitioner school before the NLRC. as spelled out in the Labor Code. Retirement, on the other hand,
is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a voluntary
The School avers that the retirement of Llagas and Javier was agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the
clearly in accordance with a specific right granted under the CBA.  latter after reaching a certain age agrees and/or consents to sever
The School justifies its actions by invoking our rulings in his employment with the former.
Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC and Bulletin Publishing
Corporation v. Sanchez that no unfair labor practice is committed Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended, governs retirement of
by management if the retirement was made in accord with employees, stating:
management prerogative or in case of voluntary retirement, upon  ART. 287.  Retirement. –    Any employee may be retired upon
approval of management.  reaching the retirement age established in the collective
The Union, on the other hand, argues that the retirement of the bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.
two union officers is a mere subterfuge to bust the union.               In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to
ISSUE receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under
existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other
Whether or not the retirement of Llagas and Javier is legal. agreements: Provided, however, That an employee’s retirement
benefits under any collective bargaining agreement and other Yet the CBA in the case at bar contains no such infirmities which
agreements shall not be less than those provided herein. must be stricken down. Twenty years is a more than ideal length
of service an employee can render to one employer. Under
              In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement ordinary contemplation, a CBA provision entitling an employee to
providing for retirement benefits of employees in the retire after 20 years of service and accordingly collect retirement
establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) benefits is “reward for services rendered since it enables an
years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is employee to reap the fruits of his labor — particularly retirement
hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served benefits, whether lump-sum or otherwise — at an earlier age,
at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and when said employee, in presumably better physical and mental
shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to  at least one-half condition, can enjoy them better and longer.”
(1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least
six (6) months being considered as one whole year. A CBA may validly accord management the prerogative to
optionally retire an employee under the terms and conditions
By their acceptance of the CBA, the Union and its members are mutually agreed upon by management and the bargaining union,
obliged to abide by the commitments and limitations they had even if such agreement allows for retirement at an age lower than
agreed to cede to management. The questioned retirement the optional retirement age or the compulsory retirement age.
provisions cannot be deemed as an imposition foisted on the
Union, which very well had the right  to have refused to agree to Eli’s Di Disenteng Opinion: Nagcommit sila tapos aayaw. Pafall ka, ghorl.
allowing management to retire  retire employees with at least 20
years of service.

It should not be taken to mean that retirement provisions agreed

upon in the CBA are absolutely beyond the ambit of judicial review
and nullification. A CBA, as a labor contract, is not merely
contractual in nature but impressed with public interest. If the
retirement provisions in the CBA run contrary to law, public
morals, or public policy, such provisions may very well be voided.
Certainly, a CBA provision or employment contract that would
allow management to subvert security of tenure and allow it to
unilaterally “retire” employees after one month of service cannot
be upheld. Neither will the Court sustain a retirement clause that
entitles the retiring employee to benefits less than what is
guaranteed under Article 287 of the Labor Code, pursuant to the
provision’s express proviso thereto in the provision.