01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee

permanent employment under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, in

relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length of service.
FIRST DIVISION
Aggrieved by the repeated denials of his claim for retirement benefits, Bernardo filed
[ G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017 ] before the NLRC, National Capital Region, a complaint for non-payment of retirement
benefits and damages against DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista.
DE LA SALLE ARANETA UNIVERSITY, PETITIONER, VS. JUANITO C.
DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista averred that DLS-AU is a non-stock, non profit educational
BERNARDO, RESPONDENT.
institution duly organized under Philippine laws, and Dr. Bautista was then its
Executive Vice-President. DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista countered that Bernardo was
DECISION
hired as a part-time lecturer at the Graduate School of DLS-AU to teach Recent
Advances in Animal Nutrition for the first semester of school year 2003-2004. As
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: stated in the Contract for Part Time Facuity Member Semestral, Bernardo bound
himself to teach "for the period of one semester beginning June 9, 2003 to October
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court 12, 2003." The contract also provided that "this Contract shall automatically expire
filed by De La Salle-Araneta University (DLS-AU) seeking the annulment and reversal unless expressly renewed in writing."[9] Prior contracts entered into between Bernardo
of the Decision[1] dated June 29, 2009 and Resolution[2] dated January 4, 2010 of the and DLS-AU essentially contained the same provisions. On November 8, 2003, DLS-
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106399, which affirmed in toto the Decision[3] of AU informed Bernardo that his contract would no longer be renewed. DLS-AU and Dr.
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 043416-05. Bautista were surprised when they received a letter from Bernardo on February 18,
The NLRC reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter's Decision [4] dated December 13, 2004 claiming retirement benefits and Summons dated February 26, 2004 from the
2004 in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-02-02729-04 and found that respondent Juanito C. NLRC in relation to Bernardo's complaint.[10]
Bernardo (Bernardo) was entitled to retirement benefits.
DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista maintained that Bernardo, as a part-time employee, was not
On February 26, 2004, Bernardo filed a complaint against DLS-AU and its entitled to retirement benefits. The contract between DLS-AU and Bernardo was for a
owner/manager, Dr. Oscar Bautista (Dr. Bautista), for the payment of retirement fixed term, i.e., one semester. Contracts of employment for a fixed term are not
benefits. Bernardo alleged that he started working as a part-time professional lecturer proscribed by law, provided that they had been entered into by the parties without any
at DLS-AU (formerly known as the Araneta University Foundation) on June 1, 1974 force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and
for an hourly rate of P20.00. Bernardo taught for two semesters and the summer for absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. That DLS-AU no longer renewed
the school year 1974-1975. Bernardo then took a leave of absence from June 1, 1975 Bernardo's contract did not necessarily mean that Bernardo should be deemed retired
to October 31, 1977 when he was assigned by the Philippine Government to work in from service.
Papua New Guinea. When Bernardo came back in 1977, he resumed teaching at
DLS-AU until October 12, 2003, the end of the first semester for school year 2003- DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista also contended that Bernardo, as a part time employee,
2004. Bernardo's teaching contract was renewed at the start of every semester and was not entitled to retirement benefits pursuant to any retirement plan, CBA, or
summer. However, on November 8, 2003, DLS-AU informed Bernardo through a employment contract. Neither was DLS-AU mandated by law to pay Bernardo
telephone call that he could not teach at the school anymore as the school was retirement benefits. The compulsory retirement age under Article 302 [287] of the
implementing the retirement age limit for its faculty members. As he was already 75 Labor Code, as amended, is 65 years old. When the employee reaches said age,
years old, Bernardo had no choice but to retire. At the time of his retirement, his/her employment is deemed terminated. The matter of extension of the employee's
Bernardo was being paid P246.50 per hour.[5] service is addressed to the sound discretion of the employer; it is a privilege only the
employer can grant. In this case, Bernardo was effectively separated from the service
Bernardo immediately sought advice from the Department of Labor and Employment upon reaching the age of 65 years old. DLS-AU merely granted Bernardo the
(DOLE) regarding his entitlement to retirement benefits after 27 years of employment. privilege to teach by engaging his services for several more years after reaching the
In letters dated January 20, 2004[6] and February 3, 200,[7] the DOLE, through its compulsory retirement age. Assuming arguendo that Bernardo was entitled to
Public Assistance Center and Legal Service Office, opined that Bernardo was entitled retirement benefits, he should have claimed the same upon.reaching the age of 65
to receive benefits under Republic Act No. 7641, otherwise known as the "New years old. Under Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, all money claims arising
Retirement Law," and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. from employer-employee relations shall be filed within three years from the time the
cause of action accrues.
Yet, Dr. Bautista, in a letter[8] dated February 12, 2004, stated that Bernardo was not
entitled to any kind of separation pay or benefits. Dr. Bautista explained to Bernardo Still according to DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista, Bernardo had no cause of action against
that as mandated by the DLS-AU's policy and Collective Bargaining Agreement Dr. Bautista because the latter was only acting on behalf of DLS-AU as its Executive
(CBA), only full-time permanent faculty of DLS-AU for at least five years immediately Vice-President. It is a well-settled rule that a corporation is a juridical entity with a
preceeding the termination of their employment could avail themselves of the post- legal personality separate and distinct from the people comprising it and those acting
employment benefits. As part-time faculty member, Bernardo did not acquire for and on its behalf. There was no showing that Dr. Bautista acted deliberately or
01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee
maliciously in refusing to pay Bernardo his retirement benefits, so as to make Dr. effectively separated from the service. Clearly, such was the time when his cause of
Bautista personally liable for any corporate obligations of DLS-AU to Bernardo. action accrued. He should have sought the payment of such benefits/pay within three
(3) years from such time. It cannot be denied that [Bernardo] belatedly sought the
Finally, DLS-AU asserted that Bernardo failed to establish the factual and legal bases payment of his retirement benefits/pay considering that he filed the instant Complaint
for his claims for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. There only ten (I0) years after his cause of action accrued. For failure to claim the retirement
was no proof of the alleged value of the profits or any other loss suffered by Bernardo benefits/pay to which he claims to be entitled within three (3) years from the time he
because of the non-payment of his retirement benefits. There was likewise no reached the age of sixty-five (65), his claim should be forever barred.[11]
evidence of bad faith or fraud on the part of DLS-AU in refusing to grant Bernardo The Labor Arbiter decreed:
retirement benefits.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the
On December 13, 2004, the Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing instant Complaint on the ground that the claim for retirement benefits/pay is already
Bernardo's complaint on the ground of prescription, thus: barred by prescription.[12]
Bernardo appealed the foregoing Labor Arbiter's Decision to the NLRC, arguing that
[T]he age of sixty-five (65) is declared as the compulsory retirement age under Article since he continuously worked for DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista until October 12, 2003, he
287 of the Labor Code, as amended. When the compulsory retirement age is reached was considered retired and the cause of action for his retirement benefits accrued
by an employee or official, he is thereby effectively separated from the service (UST only on said date. There was clearly an agreement between Bernardo and DLS-AU
Faculty Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, University of Santo Tomas, that the former would continue teaching even after reaching the compulsory
G.R. No. 89885, August 6, 1990). As mentioned earlier, [Bernardo] is already retirement age of 65 years. In addition, under Republic Act No. 7641, part-time
seventy-five (75) years old, and is way past the compulsory retirement age. If he were workers are entitled to retirement pay of one-half month salary for every years of
indeed entitled to receive his retirement pay/benefits, he should have claimed the service, provided that the following conditions are present: (a) there is no retirement
same ten (10) years ago upon reaching the age of sixty-five (65). plan between the employer and employees; (b) the employee has reached the age of
60 years old for optional retirement or 65 years old for compulsory retirement; and (c)
In this connection, it would be worthy to mention that the Labor Code contains a the employee should have rendered at least five years of service with the employer.
specific provision that deals with money claims arising out of employer-employee Bernardo avowed that all these conditions were extant in his case.
relationships. Article 291 of the Labor Code as amended clearly provides:
The NLRC, in its Decision dated June 30, 2008, reversed the Labor Arbiter's ruling
"ART. 291. MONEY CLAIMS. - All money claims arising from employer-employee and found that Bernardo timely filed his complaint for retirement benefits. The NLRC
relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) pointed out that DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista, knowing fully well that Bernardo already
years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall forever be reached the compulsory age of retirement of 65 years old, still extended Bernardo's
barred. employment. Thus, Bernardo's cause of action for payment of his retirement benefits
accrued only on November 8, 2003, when he was informed by DLS-AU that his
xxxx contract would no longer be renewed and he was deemed separated from
The prescriptive period referred to in Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended employment. The principle of estoppel was also applicable against DLS-AU and Dr.
applies to all kinds of money claims arising from employer-employee relations Bautista who could not validly claim prescription when they were the ones who
including claims for retirement benefits. permitted Bernardo to work beyond retirement age. As to Bernardo's entitlement to
retirement benefits, the NLRC held:
The ruling of the Supreme Court in De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No.
132257, October 12, 1998), squarely applies to the instant case: Equally untenable is the contention that [Bernardo], being a part time employee, is not
entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 7641. Indeed, a perusal of the
"The language of Article 291 of the Labor Code does not limit its application only to retirement law does not exclude a part time employee from enjoying retirement
"money claims specifically recoverable under said Code," but covers all money claims benefits. On this score, Republic Act No. 7641 explicitly provides as within its
arising from employer-employee relations. Since petitioners' demand for unpaid coverage "all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position,
retirement/separation benefits is a money claim arising from their employment by designation, or status, and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid"
private respondent, Article 291 of the Labor Code is applicable. Therefore, petitioners' (Section 1, Rules Implementing the New Retirement Law) (Underlined for emphasis).
claim should be filed within three years from the time their cause of action accrued, or The only exceptions are employees covered by the Civil Service Law; domestic
forever barred by prescription." helpers and persons in the personal service of another; and employees in retail,
It cannot be denied that the claim for retirement benefits/pay arose out of employer- service and agricultural establishments or operations regularly employing not more
employee relations. In line with the decision of the Supreme Court in De Guzman, it than ten employees (ibid). Clearly, [Bernardo] does not fall under any of the
should be treated as a money claim that must be claimed within three years from the exceptions.
time the cause of action accrued.
Lastly, it is axiomatic that retirement law should be construed liberally in favor of the
Thus, upon reaching the compulsory retirement age of sixty-five (65), [Bernardo] was employee, and all doubts as to the intent of the laws should be resolved in favor of
01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee
the retiree to achieve its humanitarian purpose (Re: Gregorio G. Pineda, 187 SCRA
469, 1990). A contrary ruling would inevitably defy such settled rule. [13] WHETHER OR NOT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
In the end, the NLRC adjudged: COVERAGE OF THOSE ENTITLED TO RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER
REPUBLIC ACT NO. [7641].
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the
appealed decision of the Labor Arbiter. Accordingly, a new one is issued finding
[Bernardo] entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 and ordering II.
[DLS-AU and Dr. Bautista] to pay [Bernardo] his retirement benefits equivalent to at
least one-half (1/2) month of his latest salary for every year of his service. Other WHETHER OR NOT A CLAIM FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS FILED BEYOND THE
claims are hereby denied for lack of merit.[14] PERIOD PROVIDED FOR UNDER ART. 291 OF THE LABOR CODE HAS
In a Resolution dated September 15, 2008, the NLRC denied the Motion for PRESCRIBED.[16]
Reconsideration ofDLS-AU and Dr. Bautista for lack of merit. We find the instant petition bereft of merit.

DLS-AU filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, Bernardo is not questioning the termination of his employment, hut only
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for (1) holding that asserting his right to retirement benefits.
Bernardo was entitled to retirement benefits despite the fact that he was a mere part-
time employee; and (2) not holding that Bernardo's claim for retirement benefits was There is no dispute that Bernardo was a part-time lecturer at DLS-AU, with a fixed-
barred by prescription. term employment. As a part-time lecturer, Bernardo did not attain permanent status.
Section 93 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provided:
The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on June 29, 2009, affirming in toto the
NLRC judgment. The Court of Appeals ruled that the coverage of, as well as the Sec. 93. Regular or Permanent Status. - Those who have served the probationary
exclusion from, Republic Act No. 7641 are clearly delineated under Sections 1 and 2 period shall be made regular or permanent. Full-time teachers who have satisfactorily
of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule II of the Labor Code, as well as the Labor completed their probationary period shall be considered regular or permanent.
Advisory on Retirement Pay Law; and part-time employees are not among those
excluded from enjoying retirement benefits. Labor and social laws, being remedial in Per Section 92 of the same Regulations, probationary period for academic personnel
character, should be liberally construed in order to further their purpose. The "shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in
appellate court also declared that the NLRC did not err in relying on the Implementing the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of
Rules of Republic Act No. 7641 because administrative rules and regulations issued satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters
by a competent authority remain valid unless shown to contravene the Constitution or of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are
used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the scope intended. offered on the trimester basis."

The Court of Appeals additionally determined that Bernardo's cause of action accrued Thus, jurisprudence identified the requisites which should concur for a private school
only upon his separation from employment and the subsequent denial of his demand teacher to acquire permanent status, viz.: (1) the teacher is a full-time teacher; (2) the
for retirement benefits. To the appellate court, the NLRC was correct in applying the teacher must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and (3) such service
equitable doctrine of estoppel since the continuous extension of Bernardo's must have been satisfactory.[17]
employment, despite him being well over the statutory compulsory age of retirement,
prevented him from already claiming his retirement benefits for he was under the Considering the foregoing requirements, a part-time employee would not attain
impression that he could avail himself of the same eventually upon the termination of permanent status no matter how long he had served the school. [18] Bernardo did not
his employment. become a permanent employee of DLS-AU despite teaching there as a part-time
lecturer for a total of 27 years.
The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
Our jurisprudence had likewise settled the legitimacy of fixed-term employment. In the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of landmark case of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[19] the Court pronounced:
the National Labor Relations Commission, dated 30 June 2008, is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto. [Bernardo's] application for the issuance of a Temporary From the premise - that the duties of an employee entail "activities which are usually
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is accordingly DENIED.[15] necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" - the
The Motion for Reconsideration of DLS-AU was denied by the Court of Appeals in its conclusion does not necessarily follow that the employer and employee should be
Resolution dated January 4, 2010. forbidden to stipulate any period of time for the performance of those activities. There
is nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of an employment
Hence, DLS-AU lodged the present petition before us, raising the following issues: contract and the nature of the employee's duties set down in that contract as being
"usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer." The
I. concept of the employee's duties as being "usually necessary or desirable in the
01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee
usual business or trade of the employer" is not synonymous with or identical to Nonetheless, that Bernardo was a part-time employee and his employment was for a
employment with a fixed term. Logically, the decisive determinant in the term fixed period are immaterial in this case. Bernardo is not alleging illegal dismissal nor
employment should not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform, claiming separation pay. Bernardo is asserting his right to retirement benefits given
but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and the termination of his employment with DLS-AU when he was already 75 years old.
termination of their employment relationship, a day certain being understood to be
"that which must necessarily come, although it may not be known when." Seasonal As a part-time employee with fixed-term employment, Bernardo is entitled to
employment, and employment for a particular project are merely instances of retirement benefits.
employment in which a period, where not expressly set down, is necessarily implied.
The Court declared in Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission[20] that
xxxx retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of
his life, lessening the burden of worrying for
Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation
culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have his financial support, and are a form of reward for his loyalty and service to the
been, as already observed, to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be employer. Retirement benefits, where not mandated by law, may be granted by
secure in his tenure, the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling agreement of the employees and their employer or as a voluntary act on the part of
out all written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment the employer.
as defined therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code
itself has singled out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of In the present case, DLS-AU, through Dr. Bautista, denied Bernardo's claim for
tenure. It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment retirement benefits because only full-time permanent faculty of DLS-AU are entitled to
was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress said benefits pursuant to university policy and the CBA. Since Bernardo has not been
or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other granted retirement benefits under any agreement with or by voluntary act of DLS-AU,
circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the the next question then is, can Bernardo claim retirement benefits by mandate of any
employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no law?
moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. Unless thus
limited in its purview, the law would be made to apply to purposes other than those We answer in the affirmative.
explicitly stated by its framers; it thus becomes pointless and arbitrary, unjust in its
effects and apt to lead to absurd and unintended consequences. Republic Act No. 7641 is a curative social legislation. It precisely intends to give the
minimum retirement benefits to employees not entitled to the same under collective
Such interpretation puts the seal on [Bibiso v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc.] upon the bargaining and other agreements. It also applies to establishments with existing
effect of the expiry of an agreed period of employment as still good rule - a rule collective bargaining or other agreements or voluntary retirement plans whose
reaffirmed in the recent case of Escudero v. Office of the President (G.R. No. 57822, benefits are less than those prescribed in said law. [21]
April 26, 1989) where, in the fairly analogous case of a teacher being served by her
school a notice of termination following the expiration of the last of three successive Article 302 [287] of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, reads:
fixed term employment contracts, the Court held:
Art. 302 [287]. Retirement. - Any employee may be retired upon reaching the
"Reyes' (the teacher's) argument is not persuasive. It loses sight of the fact that her retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable
employment was probationary, contractual in nature, and one with a definitive period. employment contract.
At the expiration of the period stipulated in the contract, her appointment was deemed
terminated and the letter informing her of the non-renewal of her contract is not a In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement
condition sine qua non before Reyes may be deemed to have ceased in the employ benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining
of petitioner UST. The notice is a mere reminder that Reyes' contract of employment agreement and other agreements: Provided however, That an employee's retirement
was due to expire and that the contract would no longer be renewed. It is not a letter benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreement shall not be less than
of termination. The interpretation that the notice is only a reminder is consistent with those provided herein.
the court's finding in Labajo, supra. x x x."
Bernardo's employment with DLS-AU had always been for a fixed term, i.e., for a In the absence of retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of
semester or summer. Absent allegation and proof to the contrary, Bernardo entered employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60)
into such contracts of employment with DLS-AU knowingly and voluntarily. Hence, years or more, but not beyond sixty five (65) years which is hereby declared the
Bernardo's contracts of employment with DLS-AU for a fixed term were valid, legal, compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in said
and binding. Bernardo's last contract of employment with DLS-AU ended on October establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least
12, 2003, upon the close of the first semester for school year 2003-2004, without one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6)
DLS-AU offering him another contract for the succeeding semester. months being considered as one whole year.
01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half month salary shall Through a Labor Advisory dated October 24, 1996, then Secretary of Labor, and later
mean fifteen (15) days plus one twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash Supreme Court Justice, Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Secretary Quisumbing), provided
equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves. Guidelines for the Effective Implementation of Republic Act No. 7641, The Retirement
Pay Law, addressed to all employers in the private sector. Pertinent portions of said
xxxx Labor Advisory are reproduced below:

Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not A. COVERAGE

more than ten (10) employees or workers are exempted from the coverage of
this provision. RA 7641 or the Retirement Pay Law shall apply to all employees in the private sector,
regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by
Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal which their wages are paid. They shall include part-time employees, employees
provisions provided under Article 288 of this Code. (Emphases ours.) of service and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the
Book VI, Rule II of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code clearly describes the personal service of another.
coverage of Republic Act No. 7641 and specifically identifies the exemptions from the
same, to wit: The law does not cover employees of retail, service and agricultural establishments or
operations employing not more than [ten] (10) employees or workers and employees
Sec. 1. General Statement on Coverage. - This Rule shall apply to all employees in of the National Government and its political subdivisions, including Government-
the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and owned and/or controlled corporations, if they are covered by the Civil Service Law
irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those and its regulations.
specifically exempted under Section 2 hereof. As used herein, the term "Act" shall
refer to Republic Act No. 7641, which took effect on January 7, 1993. xxxx

Section 2. Exemptions. - This Rule shall not apply to the following employees: C. SUBSTITUTE RETIREMENT PLAN

2.1 Employees of the National Government and its political subdivisions, Qualified workers shall be entitled to the retirement benefit under RA 7641 in the
including Government-owned and/or controlled corporations, if they are absence of any individual or collective agreement, company policy or practice. x x x
covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations. (Emphasis ours.)
Republic Act No. 7641 states that "any employee may be retired upon reaching the
2.2 Domestic helpers and persons in the personal service of another. (Deleted by retirement age x x x;" and "[i]n case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to
Department Order No. 20 issued by Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confessor on May 31, receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any
1994.) collective bargaining agreement and other agreements." The Implementing Rules
provide that Republic Act No. 7641 applies to "all employees in the private sector,
2.3. Employees of retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by
regularly employing not more than ten (10) employees. As used in this sub- which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted x x x." And
section: Secretary Quisumbing's Labor Advisory further clarifies that the employees covered
by Republic Act No. 7641 shall "include part-time employees, employees of service
(a) "Retail establishment" is one principally engaged in the sale of goods to end-users and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of
for personal or household use. It shall lose its retail character qualified for exemption another."
if it is engaged in both retail and wholesale of goods.
The only exemptions specifically identified by Republic Act No. 7641 and its
(b) "Service establishment" is one principally engaged in the sale of service to Implementing Rules are: (1) employees of the National Government and its political
individuals for their own or household use and is generally recognized as such. subdivisions, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, if they are
covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations; and (2) employees of retail,
(c) "Agricultural establishment/operation" refers to an employer which is engaged in service and agricultural establishments or operations regularly employing not more
agriculture. This term refers to all farming activities in all its branches and includes, than 10 employees.
among others, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, production, cultivation, growing
and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities, dairying, raising of Based on Republic Act No. 7641, its Implementing Rules, and Secretary
livestock or poultry, the culture of fish and other aquatic products in farms or ponds, Quisumbing's Labor Advisory, Bernardo, as a part-time employee of DLS-AU, is
and any activities performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in entitled to retirement benefits. The general coverage of Republic Act No. 7641 is
conjunctions with such farming operations, but does not include the manufacture broad enough to encompass all private sector employees, and part-time employees
and/or processing of sugar, coconut, abaca, tobacco, pineapple, aquatic or other farm are not among those specifically exempted from the law. The provisions of Republic
products. (Emphases ours.) Act No. 7641 and its Implementing Rules are plain, direct, unambiguous, and need no
01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee
further elucidation. Any doubt is dispelled by the unequivocal statement in Secretary
Quisumbing's Labor Advisory that Republic Act No. 7641 applies to even part-time We further find that the Implementing Rules and Secretary Quisumbing's Labor
employees. Advisory are consistent with Article 4 of the Labor Code, which expressly mandates
that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code,
Under the rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor."
Bernardo's claim for retirement benefits cannot be denied on the ground that he was There being no compelling argument herein to convince us otherwise, we uphold the
a part-time employee as part-time employees are not among those specifically legality and validity of the Implementing Rules and Secretary Quisumbing's Labor
exempted under Republic Act No. 7641 or its Implementing Rules. Said rule of Advisory, and likewise apply the same to Bernardo's case.
statutory construction is explained thus:
For the availment of the retirement benefits under Article 302 [287] of the Labor Code,
It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the employee has reached the age of 60 years for optional retirement or 65 years for
familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. compulsory retirement; (2) the employee has served at least five years in the
establishment; and (3) there is no retirement plan or other applicable agreement
The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment. Bernardo - being
One variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that 75 years old at the time of his retirement, having served DLS-AU for a total of 27
which is implied. Expressum facit cessare tacitum. Thus, where a statute, by its years, and not being covered by the grant of retirement benefits in the CBA - is
terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or unquestionably qualified to avail himself of retirement benefits under said statutory
construction, be extended to other matters. provision, i.e., equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service, a fraction
of at least six months being considered as one whole year.[25]
xxxx
Bernardo's employment was extended beyond the compulsory retirement age
The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations are canons of and the cause of action for his retirement benefits accrued only upon the
restrictive interpretation. They are based on the rules of logic and the natural termination of his extended employment with DLSAU.
workings of the human mind. They are predicated upon one's own voluntary act and
not upon that of others. They proceed from the premise that the legislature would not Article 306 [291] of the Labor Code mandates:
have made specified enumeration in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its
meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.[22] Art. 306 [291]. Money claims. - All money claims arising from employer-employee
The NLRC and the Court of Appeals did not err in relying on the Implementing Rules relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three years
of Republic Act No. 7641 in their respective judgments which favored Bernardo. from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.
DLS-AU invokes UST Faculty Union v. National Labor Relations
Congress, through Article 5 of the Labor Code, delegated to the Department of Labor Commission,[26] wherein it was held that when an employee or official has reached
and Employment (DOLE) and other government agencies charged with the the compulsory retirement age, he is thereby effectively separated from the service.
administration and enforcement of said Code the power to promulgate the necessary And so, DLS-AU maintains that Bernardo's cause of action for his retirement benefits,
implementing rules and regulations. It was pursuant to Article 5 of the Labor Code which is patently a money claim, accrued when he reached the compulsory retirement
that then Secretary of Labor Ma. Nieves R. Confesor issued on January 7, 1993 the age of 65 years old, and had already prescribed when Bernardo filed his complaint
Rules Implementing the New Retirement Law, which became Rule II of Book VI of the only 10 years later, when he was already 75 years old.
Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
We are not persuaded.
In ruling that Bernardo, as part-time employee, is entitled to retirement benefits, we
do no less and no more than apply Republic Act No. 7641 and its Implementing Rules The case of UST Faculty Union is not in point as the issue involved therein was the
issued by the DOLE under the authority given to it by the Congress. Needless to right of a union to intervene in the extension of the service of a retired employee.
stress, the Implementing Rules partake the nature of a statute and are binding as if Professor Tranquilina J. Marilio (Prof. Marilio) already reached the compulsory
written in the law itself. They have the force and effect of law and enjoy the retirement age of 65 years old, but was granted by the University of Sto. Tomas
presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an (UST) an extension of two years tenure. We ruled in said case that UST no longer
appropriate case by a competent court.[23] needed to consult the union before refusing to further extend Prof. Marilio's tenure.

Moreover, as a matter of contemporaneous interpretation of law, Secretary A cause of action has three elements, to wit, (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
Quisumbing's Labor Advisory has persuasive effect. It is undisputed that in whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on
administrative law, contemporaneous and practical interpretation of law by the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act
administrative officials charged with its administration and enforcement carries great or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
weight and should be respected, unless contrary to law or manifestly erroneous. [24] constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff. [27]
01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee
merit. The Decision dated June 29, 2009 and Resolution dated January 4, 2010 of the
Bernardo's right to retirement benefits and the obligation of DLS-AU to pay such Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106399 are AFFIRMED.
benefits are already established under Article 302 [287] of the Labor Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7641. However, there was a violation of Bernardo's SO ORDERED.
right only after DLS-AU informed him on November 8, 2003 that the university no
longer intended to offer him another contract of employment, and already accepting Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
his separation from service, Bernardo sought his retirement benefits, but was denied
by DLS AU. Therefore, the cause of action for Bernardo's retirement benefits only
[1] Rollo, pp. 38-49; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Associate
accrued after the refusal of DLS-AU to pay him the same, clearly expressed in Dr.
Bautista's letter dated February 12, 2004. Hence, Bernardo's complaint, filed with the Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Vicente S. E. Veloso concurring.
NLRC on February 26, 2004, was filed within the three-year prescriptive period
[2]
provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Id. at 51-52.

Even granting arguendo that Bernardo's cause of action already accrued when he [3] Id. at 176-182.
reached 65 years old, we cannot simply overlook the fact that DLS-AU had repeatedly
[4]
extended Bernardo's employment even when he already reached 65 years old. DLS- Id. at 147-156.
AU still knowingly offered Bernardo, and Bernardo willingly accepted, contracts of
[5]
employment to teach for semesters and summers in the succeeding 10 years. Since NLRC rollo, pp. 22-23.
DLS-AU was still continuously engaging his services even beyond his retirement age,
[6]
Bernardo deemed himself still employed and deferred his claim for retirement Id. at 29.
benefits, under the impression that he could avail himself of the same upon the actual
[7]
termination of his employment. The equitable doctrine of estoppel is thus applicable Id. at 30.
against DLS-AU. In Planters Development Bank v. Spouses Lopez,[28]we expounded
[8]
on the principle of estoppels as follows: Id. at 32.
[9]
Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that whenever a party has, by his Id. at 20.
own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe
[10]
that a particular thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation Id. at 11.
arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
[11] Rollo, pp. 153-156.
The concurrence of the following requisites is necessary for the principle of equitable
[12]
estoppel to apply: (a) conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of Id. at 156.
material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are
[13]
otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to Id. at 181.
assert; (b) intent, or at least expectation that this conduct shall be acted upon, or at
[14]
least influenced by the other party; and (c) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the Id. at 181-182.
actual facts.
[15] Id. at 48.
Inaction or silence may under some circumstances amount to a misrepresentation, so
[16]
as to raise an equitable estoppel. When the silence is of such a character and under Id. at 17.
such circumstances that it would become a fraud on the other party to permit the
[17]
party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe St. Mary's University v. Court of Appeals, 493 Phil. 232, 237 (2005).
and act on, it will operate as an estoppel. This doctrine rests on the principle that if
[18]
one maintains silence, when in conscience he ought to speak, equity will debar him Id. at 239.
from speaking when in conscience he ought to remain silent.
[19]
DLS-AU, in this case, not only kept its silence that Bernardo had already reached the 260 Phil. 747, 756-757, 763-764 (1990).
compulsory retirement age of 65 years old, but even continuously offered him
[20]
contracts of employment for the next 10 years. It should not be allowed to escape its 283 Phil. 1, 6 (1992).
obligation to pay Bernardo's retirement benefits by putting entirely the blame for the
[21]
deferred claim on Bernardo's shoulders. MLQU v. National Labor Relations Commission, 419 Phil. 776, 783 (2001).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED for lack of [22] Malinias v. Commission on Elections, 439 Phil. 319, 335-336 (2002), citing Ruben
01 RETIREMENT – Coverage; Part-time employee
E. Agpa1o, Statutory Construction, (1990), pp. 160-161, which, in turn, cited People
v. Aquino, 83 Phil. 614 (1949); Lerum v. Cruz, 87 Phil. 652 (1950); Canlas v.
Republic, 103 Phil. 712 ( 1958); Lao Oh Kim v. Reyes, 103 Phil. 1139 (1958); Manila
Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, 165 Phil. 161 (1976); Escribano v. Judge Avila,
174 Phil. 490 (1978); Santos v. Court of Appeals, 185 Phil. 331 (1980); Velazco v.
Bias, 201 Phil. 122 (1982).
[23] Samson v. Restrivera, 662 Phil. 45, 60 (2011).
[24] Amores v. Acting Chairman, Commission on Audit, 291-A Phil. 445, 450 (1993).
[25]
Under Book VI, Rule II, Section 5.2 of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the
"one-half month salary" shall include all of the following:

(a) Fifteen (15) days salary of the employee based on his latest salary rate. As used
herein, the term "salary" includes all remunerations paid by an employer to his
employees for services rendered during normal working days and hours, whether
such payments are fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece of commission basis, or
other method of calculating the same, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as
determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, of food, lodging or other
facilities customarily furnished by the employer to his employees. The term does not
include cost of living allowances, profit-sharing payments and other monetary benefits
which are not considered as part of or integrated into the regular salary of the
employees.

(b) The cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leave.

(c) One-twelfth of the 13th month pay due the employee.

(d) All other benefits that the employer and employee may agree upon that should be
included in the employee's retirement pay.
[26] 266 Phil. 441, 448 (1990).
[27] Auto Bus Transport System Inc. v. Bautista, 497 Phil. 863, 875 (2005).
[28] 720 Phil. 426, 441-442 (2013).