The case of Ramon Sampana vs. Maritime Training Center of the Philippines, et al.
(G.R. No. 264439, February 26, 2024)
Photo from Unsplash | Simon Hurry
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Retirement benefits under this law are calculated as 1/2 month’s salary for each year of service, based on 22.5 days per year, for employees with at least five years of service. Sampana, having turned 60 on February 16, 2016, and having served TMTCP for over five years, met the eligibility criteria for retirement benefits when he expressed his intent to retire in November 2016. Furthermore, he reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 on February 16, 2021, confirming his entitlement to the benefits.
Sampana claimed that he was initially hired by TMTCP as an Instructor under a consultancy agreement from March 21, 2011, to June 21, 2011, with a PHP 25,000 monthly salary. This agreement was renewed every three months for three years. From March 21, 2014, his contract was reclassified to “Employment with a Fixed Term” with a PHP 27,000 monthly salary, and this fixed-term contract was renewed every three months until December 21, 2016.
In November 2016, as Sampana approached retirement age, he inquired about his retirement benefits, stating his intention to retire after his five years and eight months of service. On December 21, 2016, he was dismissed by TMTCP and required to sign an Employee Clearance Form with Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim.
TMTCP contended that Sampana’s initial consultancy was not an employer-employee relationship, and thus the time spent under consultancy did not count towards the required five years of service for retirement benefits. They maintained that Sampana was aware his fixed-term employment was only for the duration of the training course and was renewed at mutual agreement. Therefore, they argued he was not entitled to retirement pay as he did not meet the five-year service requirement.
An issue arises as to the entitlement to retirement benefits of Sampana to which the court ruled in the affirmative.
The court has determined that Sampana was a regular employee of TMTCP from March 21, 2011, until his dismissal on December 21, 2016. As such, he is entitled to retirement benefits under Article 302 [287] of the Labor Code. This law, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, provides for retirement benefits upon reaching either optional retirement age (60) or compulsory retirement age (65), without distinction in benefit amounts.
Retirement benefits under this law are calculated as 1/2 month’s salary for each year of service, based on 22.5 days per year, for employees with at least five years of service. Sampana, having turned 60 on February 16, 2016, and having served TMTCP for over five years, met the eligibility criteria for retirement benefits when he expressed his intent to retire in November 2016. Furthermore, he reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 on February 16, 2021, confirming his entitlement to the benefits.
Source:
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.