7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

*
G.R. No. 155146. January 24, 2006.

DR. PERLA A. POSTIGO, FRANCISCO F. ALMACEN,

NARCISO M. ALMENDRAL, NENA E. BASTO, JUANITO
M. BERNARDINO, ADELFA B. CRESCINI, MARCIAL R.
DE JESUS, DR. PEDRO LOPEZ DE LEON, PREMIA M.
DUMLAO, DAVID F. ESTACIO, LINA G. ESTRELLA,
GENOVEVA V. HERNANDEZ, PEDRO A. PARIL, PEDRO
H. SINGSON, ALBERTO A. TUDIO, MARIETTA B. ULIT,
LOURDES C. LEGASPI, PEDRO PEROCHO, LANI
CORTEZ, GUADALUPE B. MACATANGAY, DOLORES C.
FERNANDEZ, LUMINOSA G. REYNO, ESTRELLA P.
SURATOS, LYDIA E. DE BOSCH, ZENAIDA C.
CARRIEDO, DR. FINAFLOR C. TAN, petitioners, vs.
PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY, INC.,
respondent.

Labor Law; Appeals; While the appeal of a decision involving

a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond and the posting of the bond is an
indis-

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

629

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 629

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

pensable requirement to perfect such an appeal, a relaxation of the

appeal bond requirement could be justified by substantial
compliance with the rule.—Aside from the fact that the filing of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

the motion was justified, the respondent immediately submitted a

supersedeas bond with its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC
resolution dismissing its appeal. In Ong v. Court of Appeals, we
ruled that the aggrieved party may file the appeal bond within
the ten-day reglementary period following the receipt of the
resolution of the NLRC to forestall the finality of such resolution.
Hence, while the appeal of a decision involving a monetary award
in labor cases may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
surety bond and the posting of the bond is an indispensable
requirement to perfect such an appeal, a relaxation of the appeal
bond requirement could be justified by substantial compliance
with the rule.
Same; Same; The bond requirement on appeals involving
awards is sometimes given a liberal interpretation in line with the
desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.—Time
and again, this Court has ruled that while the above-mentioned
rule treats the filing of a cash or surety bond in the amount
equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from,
as a jurisdictional requirement to perfect an appeal, the bond
requirement on appeals involving awards is sometimes given a
liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of
resolving controversies on the merits.
Same; Retirement Law; Respondent is a private and not a
governmental corporation.—The case of Feliciano v. Commission
on Audit, finds strong relevance. Although with different factual
circumstances, the Court discussed therein the two classes of
corporations recognized by the 1987 Constitution. The first refers
to private corporations created under a general law; the second
refers to gov-ernment-owned or controlled corporations created by
special charters. We also reiterated that under Section 14 of the
Corporation Code, “[a]ll corporations organized under this Code
shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission articles of
incorporation . . .” The respondent was incorporated on March 11,
1960 as a non-profit, benevolent and non-stock corporation under
the Corporation Code. Having been created under the general
corporation law instead of a special charter, we hold that the
respondent is a private and not a governmental corporation.

630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

Same; Same; Petitioners being employees in the private sector

are entitled to the benefits of Rep. Act No. 7641.—Extant on the
records is the respondent’s admission that although its employees

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

are compulsory members of the GSIS, said employees are not

governed by the Civil Service Law. If the respondent is truly a
government-owned or controlled corporation, and petitioners are
employees in the public sector, then, they should have been
covered by said law. The truth, however, is that, the respondent is
a non-profit but private corporation organized under the
Corporation Code, and the petitioners are covered by the Labor
Code and not by the Civil Service Law. From the foregoing, it is
clear to us that the petitioners are employees in the private
sector, hence entitled to the benefits of Rep. Act No. 7641.
Same; Same; The accommodation under Rep. Act No. 1820
extending GSIS coverage to Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.
(PTSI) employees did not take away from petitioners the beneficial
coverage afforded by Rep. Act No. 7641.—In Juco v. NLRC, we
clarified that employees of government-owned and controlled
corporations with special charters are covered under the Civil
Service. On the other hand, employees of government-owned and
controlled corporations under the Corporation Code are governed
by the provisions of the Labor Code. The Philippine Tuberculosis
Society, Inc. (PTSI) belongs to the latter category and, therefore,
covered by Rep. Act No. 7641 which is an amendment to the
Labor Code. The accommodation under Rep. Act No. 1820
extending GSIS coverage to PTSI employees did not take away
from petitioners the beneficial coverage afforded by Rep. Act No.
7641. Hence, the retirement pay payable under Article 287 of the
Labor Code as amended by Rep. Act No. 7641 should be
considered apart from the retirement benefit claimable by the
petitioners under the social security law or, as in this case, the
GSIS law.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Basilio C. Almazan, Jr. for petitioners.
          Rene V. Sarmiento and Rolando M. Delfin for
respondent.
631

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 631

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

QUISUMBING, J.:
1
This petition assails the Decision dated June 13, 2002 of
the Court of Appeals 2in CA-G.R. SP No. 59597, which set
aside the Resolution dated January 31, 2000 of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC

NCR CN 00-02-02148-99. The NLRC had dismissed the
respondent’s appeal from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter,
who ordered the payment of retirement benefits under
Republic Act No. 7641 3to petitioners. This petition likewise
assails the Resolution dated September 3, 2002 of the
Court of Appeals denying petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration.
The antecedent facts, as summarized by the Court of
Appeals and borne by the records, are as follows:
Petitioners Dr. Perla A. Postigo, et al., were regular
employees of the respondent Philippine Tuberculosis
Society, Inc. (PTSI). They retired on various dates from
1996 to 1998. Upon retirement from service, some of the
petitioners who were compulsory members of the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) obtained
retirement benefits from the GSIS.
At the time the petitioners retired, Article 287 of the4
Labor Code had been amended by Republic Act No. 7641.
Rep. Act No. 7641 granted retirement pay to qualified
employees in the private sector, in the absence of any
retirement plan or agreement with the company. As the
respondent did not have

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 37-46. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner, with

Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Mario L. Guariña III concurring.
2 Records, pp. 236-238.
3 Rollo, p. 27.
4 An Act Amending Article 287 of Presidential Decree No. 442, As
Amended, Otherwise Known As the Labor Code of the Philippines, By
Providing for Retirement Pay to Qualified Private Sector Employees in the
Absence of any Retirement Plan in the Establishment, effective on 07
January 1993.

632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

a retirement plan for its employees, aside from its

contribution to the GSIS, petitioners claimed from the
respondent their retirement benefits under Rep. Act No.
7641. The respondent denied their claims on the ground
that the accommodation extended by the GSIS to the
petitioners removed them from the coverage of the law.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

The petitioners then sought the opinion of the Bureau of

Working Conditions (BWC) of the Department of Labor and
Employment regarding their entitlement to the 5
retirement
benefits provided in Rep. Act 6
No. 7641. The BWC
confirmed their entitlement. The same opinion was
rendered and submitted by the respondent’s legal7 counsel,
Atty. Rene V. Sarmiento, to its Board of Directors. Despite
this, respondent PTSI refused to pay the petitioners their
retirement benefits.
The petitioners then filed a complaint before the Labor
Arbiter. 8
In a Decision dated June 30, 1999, the Labor Arbiter
declared petitioners entitled to retirement benefits under
Rep. Act No. 7641. However, one petitioner, Dr. Finaflor C.
Tan who was awarded her terminal leave pay, was not
included in the award of retirement benefits.
Aggrieved, respondent PTSI appealed to the NLRC.
Instead of posting the required cash or surety bond
equivalent to the amount of the award, the respondent filed
a Motion to Reduce Bond on the ground that the amount
awarded by the Labor Arbiter was erroneous. On January
31, 2000, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure to post
the required cash or surety bond.
Undaunted, the respondent elevated the matter to the
Court of Appeals. On June 13, 2002, the CA reversed the
NLRC’s decision in this wise:

_______________

5 Records, pp. 24-25.

6 Id., at p. 26-31.
7 Id., at pp. 33-34.
8 Id., at pp. 93-109.

633

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 633

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

“Indeed, in several occasions, the Supreme Court has cautioned

the NLRC to give Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended,
particularly the provisions on requiring a bond on appeals
involving monetary awards, a liberal interpretation in line with
the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.
Hence, considering the timeliness of the filing of the motion to
reduce the appeal bond and the meritorious ground upon which it
relies, We believe and so hold that the legal requirement of
posting an appeal bond has been substantially satisfied. Public
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the

appeal without passing upon the motion to reduce the appeal
bond.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Resolutions
dated 31 January 2000 and 24 May 2000 in NLRC-NCR CN 00-
02-02148-99 of public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission are hereby SET ASIDE. The NLRC is directed to act
on the Motion to Reduce Bond and to give due course to the
Appeal. 9
SO ORDERED.”

The petitioners now submit the following issues for our

consideration:

I. Whether or not the remand of the case to the NLRC

would only further delay the resolution of this case.
II. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals
decided the instant case in accordance with law and
applicable jurisprudence and based on the evidence
on record for having failed to apply the
jurisprudential precepts that:

a. errors in the computation of the monetary award

are properly a subject of appeal and should be
ventilated at the appropriate time, not in a mere
motion to reduce bond; and
b. the posting of a bond is an indispensable
requirement to perfect an employer’s appeal.

III. Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to the

benefits of the Retirement Pay Law.

_______________

9 Rollo, p. 45.

634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

IV. Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to interest

on their retirement benefits for the unjustified
withholding thereof.
V. Whether or not Petitioner Dr. Tan should be made
similarly entitled to her retirement pay, which was
inadvertently excluded by the Labor Arbiter,
pursuant to the timely motion to render judgment
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

nunc pro tunc she filed before the Labor Arbiter and
which was consistently raised all the way up to this
Honorable Court, in order to 10
effect a complete
disposition of the instant case.

In short, petitioners raise for our resolution these issues:

(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in granting the petition
and directing the NLRC to act on the Motion to Reduce
Bond and to give due course to the appeal? and (2) Are the
petitioners entitled to benefits under Rep. Act No. 7641?
On the first issue, petitioners contend that (1) errors in
the computation of the monetary award are properly a
subject of appeal and should be ventilated at the
appropriate time, not in a mere motion to reduce bond; and
(2) the posting of a bond is an indispensable requirement to
perfect an employer’s appeal.
Respondent counters that in case the monetary award is
being disputed, an appeal may still be filed without the
appeal bond, provided that a motion to reduce bond is filed
within the reglementary period.
We think that the Court of Appeals did not err in
granting the petition and holding that there was
substantial compliance in the posting of a cash or surety
bond. We likewise find 11
Nationwide Security and Allied
Services,
12
Inc. v. NLRC and Rosewood Processing, Inc. v.
NLRC inapplicable to this case.
In Nationwide Security, the petitioners therein filed a
motion to reduce bond instead of an appeal or surety bond.
The

_______________

10 Id., at pp. 750-751.

11 G.R. No. 123204, 11 July 1997, 275 SCRA 394.
12 G.R. Nos. 116476-84, 21 May 1998, 290 SCRA 408.

635

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 635

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

NLRC denied the motion on the grounds that petitioners’

alleged inability to post the bond was without basis, and to
grant the motion on the grounds stated therein would be
tantamount to ruling on the merits. In affirming the
decision of the NLRC, the Court noted that petitioners had
funds from its other businesses to post the required bond.
Further, the errors raised in the motion dealt with matters
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

that would go into the merits of the case and were thus
more appropriate in an appeal.
In this case, respondent deferred the posting of the
surety bond in view of the alleged erroneous computation
by the Labor Arbiter of the monetary award.
13
While the
Labor Arbiter awarded P5,480,484.25
14
as retirement
benefits, only P5,072,277.73, according to the respondent’s
computation was due and owing to the petitioners. Since
the motion raised a pure mathematical error, the same
may be resolved without going into the merits of the case.
In Rosewood, the petitioner therein filed a motion to
reduce the bond with the appeal bond, albeit not in the
amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from. The Court held that the NLRC gravely
abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal since a
consideration of the merits appearing in the appeal as well
as the filing of the appeal bond show that there was
substantial compliance with the rules governing appeal.
Here, aside from the fact that the filing of the motion
was justified, the15
respondent immediately submitted a
supersedeas bond with its motion for reconsideration of
the NLRC resolution
16
dismissing its appeal. In Ong v. Court
of Appeals, we ruled that the aggrieved party may file the
appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period
following the receipt

_______________

13 Records, p. 109.
14 Id., at p. 125.
15 Id., at pp. 247-252.
16 G.R. No. 152494, 22 September 2004, 438 SCRA 668.

636

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

of the resolution17 of the NLRC to forestall the finality of

such resolution. Hence, while the appeal of a decision
involving a monetary award in labor cases may be
perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond
and the posting of the bond is an indispensable
requirement to perfect such an appeal, a relaxation of the
appeal bond requirement could be justified by substantial
compliance with the rule.
Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that an appeal
from a decision of the Labor Arbiter must be made within
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

ten calendar days from receipt of a copy of the decision by

the aggrieved party; and if the decision involves a
monetary award, an appeal by the aggrieved party may be
perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond
issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by
the NLRC in the amount equivalent to the monetary
award. In addition, Section 6, Rule VI of the New Rules of
Procedure of the NLRC provides that the Commission may,
in justifiable cases and upon motion of the aggrieved party,
reduce the amount of the bond. Further, the filing of the
motion to reduce bond does not stop the running of the
period to perfect appeal.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that while the
above-mentioned rule treats the filing of a cash or surety
bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in
the judgment appealed from, as a jurisdictional
requirement to perfect an appeal, the bond requirement on
appeals involving awards is sometimes given a liberal
interpretation in line with the
18
desired objective of resolving
controversies on the merits.

_______________

17 Id., at p. 673.
18 See Cosico, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
118432, 23 May 1997, 272 SCRA 583, 593; Star Angel Handicraft v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 108914, 20 September
1994, 236 SCRA 580, 585; Blancaflor v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 101013, 2 February 1993, 218 SCRA 366, 370-371;
YBL (Your Bus Line) v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
93381, 28 September 1990, 190 SCRA 160, 164.

637

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 637

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

The special circumstances in this case, upon which the

motion to reduce the bond was predicated, justify the
relaxation of the appeal bond requirement. However,
considering that the claim for retirement benefits was
made sometime in 1999 to support the petitioners during
the twilight years of their lives, there is no doubt that a
remand of the case to the NLRC will only unduly delay the
determination of their entitlement to such benefits.
Moreover, since the case calls for the resolution of a
question of law, we consider it more appropriate to resolve

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

the appeal at this juncture, rather than remand the case to

the NLRC.
We come now to the second issue. The petitioners
contend that despite their compulsory membership in the
GSIS, they are still covered by Rep. Act No. 7641 for the
following reasons: (1) the respondent is registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as a non-stock and
non-profit corporation; hence, it is a private entity and its
employees are employees in the private sector; and (2) the
petitioners are not included in the exemptions from
coverage of Rep. Act No. 7641.
Respondent PTSI counters that as an employer in the
public sector, it is not covered by Rep. Act No. 7641 which
applies only to employees in the private sector. It relies on
Section 3, Rule I of the Amended Rules Implementing Title
II, Book IV of the Labor Code, to wit:

SEC. 3. Employer.—(a) The term shall mean any person natural

or juridical, domestic or foreign, who carries on in the Philippines
any trade, business, industry, undertaking or activity of any kind
and uses the services of another person who is under his orders as
regards the employment.
     (b) An employer shall belong to either:

          (1) The public sector covered by the GSIS, comprising the National
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, the
Philippine Tuberculosis Society, the Philippine National Red Cross, and
the Philippine Veterans Bank; or

638

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

          (2) The private sector covered by the SSS, comprising all employers
other than those defined in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Respondent’s reliance on the afore-quoted rules is

unfounded. The definition of a public sector employer as
quoted above is relevant only for purposes of coverage
under the Employees’ Compensation and State Insurance
Fund. Instead, it is the implementing rules of Title II, Book
VI of the Labor Code, which provides for the coverage and
exemptions of retirement benefits. Thus:

SECTION 1. General Statement on Coverage.—This Rule shall

apply to all employees in the private sector, regardless of their
position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by
which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

under Section 2 hereof. As used herein, the term “Act” shall refer
to Republic Act No. 7641 which took effect on January 7, 1993.
SEC. 2. Exemption.—This Rule shall not apply to the
following employees:

2.1 Employees of the National Government and its political subdivisions,

including Government-owned and/or -controlled corporations, if they are
covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations.

...

Having determined the applicable implementing rules, we

now proceed to resolve whether the respondent is a private
corporation or a public corporation; and consequently,
whether the petitioners are employees in the private sector
or in the public sector.
On 19this score, the case of Feliciano v. Commission on
Audit, finds strong relevance. Although with different
factual circumstances, the Court discussed therein the two
classes of corporations recognized by the 1987 Constitution.
The first refers to private corporations created under a
general law; the

_______________

19 G.R. No. 147402, 14 January 2004, 419 SCRA 363.

639

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 639

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

second refers to government-owned or controlled

corporations created by special charters. We also reiterated
that under Section 14 of the Corporation Code, “[a]ll
corporations organized under this Code shall file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission articles of
incorporation . . .”
The respondent was incorporated on March 11, 1960 as
a non-profit, benevolent
20
and non-stock corporation under
the Corporation Code. Having been created under the
general corporation law instead of a special charter, we
hold that the respondent is a private and not a
governmental corporation. More so, Section 2(1), Article
IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SECTION 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches,

subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

including government-owned or controlled corporations with

original charters.

Extant on the records is the respondent’s admission that

although its employees are compulsory members of the
GSIS, said employees are not governed by the Civil Service
Law. If the respondent is truly a government-owned or
controlled corporation, and petitioners are employees in the
public sector, then, they should have been covered by said
law. The truth, however, is that, the respondent is a non-
profit but private corporation organized under the
Corporation Code, and the petitioners are covered by the
Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law.
From the foregoing, it is clear to us that the petitioners
are employees in the private sector, hence entitled to the
benefits of Rep. Act No. 7641.
Even assuming that by virtue of their compulsory
inclusion in the GSIS, the petitioners became employees in
the public sector, they are still entitled to the benefits of
Rep. Act No. 7641 since they are not covered by the Civil
Service Law and

_______________

20 Records, pp. 35-37.

640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

its regulations. This much is certain upon reading the

implementing rules of Title II, Book VI of the Labor Code
as aforecited
21
as well as the Labor Advisory on Retirement
Pay Law. Under the said advisory, the coverage of, as well
as the exclusion from, Rep. Act No. 7641 has been
delineated as follows:

“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 which their wages are
paid. They shall include part-time employees, employees of
service and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons
in the personal service of another.
The law does not cover employees of retail, service and
agricultural establishments or operations employing not more
than (10) employees or workers and employees of the National
Government and its political subdivisions, including Government-

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

owned and/or controlled corporations, if they are covered by the

Civil Service Law and its regulations.” (Italics ours.)

Neither do we find merit in the respondent’s argument that

the rationale behind the enactment of Rep. Act No. 7641
justifies the exclusion of employees in the public sector,
who are already enjoying retirement benefits under the
GSIS law, from the New Retirement Law.
We direct the respondent’s attention to Section 2 of Rep.
Act No. 7641, to wit:

SEC. 2. Nothing in this Act shall deprive any employee of benefits

to which he may be entitled under existing laws or company
policies or practices.

In addition, Rule II of the Rules Implementing Book VI of

the Labor Code provides as follows:

SEC. 8. Relation to agreements and regulations.—Nothing in

this Rule shall justify an employer from withdrawing or reducing
any benefits, supplements or payments as provided in

_______________

21 Dated 24 October 1996.

641

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 641

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

existing laws, individual or collective agreements or employment

practices or policies.
...
22
In Juco v. NLRC, we clarified that employees of
government-owned and controlled corporations with special
charters are covered under the Civil Service. On the other
hand, employees of government-owned and controlled
corporations under the Corporation Code are governed by
the provisions of the Labor Code.
The Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. (PTSI) belongs
to the latter category and, therefore, covered by Rep. Act
No. 7641 which is an amendment to the Labor Code. The
accommodation under Rep. Act No. 1820 extending GSIS
coverage to PTSI employees did not take away from
petitioners the beneficial coverage afforded by Rep. Act No.
7641. Hence, the retirement pay payable under Article 287
of the Labor Code as amended by Rep. Act No. 7641 should
be considered apart from the retirement benefit claimable
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

by the petitioners under the social security law or, as in

this case, the GSIS law.
As to the alleged prolonged refusal by the respondent to
pay the petitioners their retirement benefits, we do not
think that the respondent’s stance was entirely in bad
faith. The respondent harbored the honest belief that their
compulsory coverage in the GSIS converted it into a public
corporation excluded from the coverage of Rep. Act No.
7641. As noted by this Court, the respondent even filed a
supersedeas bond, albeit belatedly, with its motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dismissing its
appeal. Such act only demonstrates that the respondent
filed the appeal in good faith. We could not speculate and
say that respondent did not intend to pay the petitioners
their retirement benefits in case the appeal is dismissed.

_______________

22 G.R. No. 98107, 18 August 1997, 277 SCRA 528, 533.

642

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

On the matter of petitioner Dr. Finaflor C. Tan, records

show she has two causes of action: (1) non-payment of
terminal23 leave pay; and (2) non-payment of retirement
benefits. While the Labor Arbiter ruled that she is
entitled to the commutation into cash of her unused leave
credits which is the equivalent of her terminal leave pay,
the former did not include her in the award of retirement
benefits. This was properly 24
raised in the Motion to Render
Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc filed by the petitioners on
October 29, 1999 before the NLRC. We see no cogent
reason why she should be excluded from the over-all award
of retirement benefits considering that she has participated
in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
WHEREFORE, this petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The Decision dated June 13, 2002 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 59597, directing the NLRC to act on the
Motion to Reduce Bond and to give due course to the
Appeal, as well as its Resolution denying the petitioners’
motion for reconsideration, are MODIFIED.
Consequently, it is DECLARED that the petitioners are
entitled to retirement benefits under Rep. Act No. 7641. In
addition to retirement benefits, petitioner Dr. Finaflor C.
Tan is entitled to the commutation into cash of her unused
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
7/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

leave credits which is the equivalent of her terminal leave

pay. Likewise, the petitioners are entitled to attorney’s
fees, equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.
Let this case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the
computation of the retirement benefits and terminal leave
pay above-mentioned. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Carpio, Carpio-Morales and Tinga, JJ., concur.

_______________

23 Records, pp. 6-7.

24 Id., at pp. 214-215.

643

VOL. 479, JANUARY 24, 2006 643

Postigo vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.

Petition partially granted, judgment and resolution

modified. Petitioners declared entitled to retirement benefits
under Republic Act No. 7641.

Note.—Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in

claims for compensation. (Philippine Transmarine Carriers,
Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 353 SCRA
47 [2001])

——o0o——

644

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bfd6aac8be9575b2c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15