Pagdonsalan v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Corazon R. Pagdonsalan was employed by respondent Gilmart Industries Phil. from April 4, 1956, to 1958, and again from 1959 until December 19, 1980. In May 1975, she was transferred to the yarn section and made to perform the work of a security guard without a formal appointment. In October 1980, after 23 years of service, she applied for retirement benefits under Section 1, Article XXIV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which entitled permanent employees with 10-15 years of service to retirement benefits. The company denied her application, citing Section 2(d), Article I of the CBA, which excluded "all security personnel" from the agreement. The company offered separation pay based on 13 days per year of service, which petitioner rejected. Her employment was terminated on December 19, 1980, without prior notice or clearance. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for retirement benefits under the CBA. Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano dismissed the complaint. Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which dismissed her appeal on the ground that she failed to furnish the employer with a copy of her appeal memorandum, as required by Article 223 of the New Labor Code and Section 9, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations. Reconsideration was denied, leading to the instant petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the NLRC's resolution dismissing her appeal and the Labor Arbiter's decision, praying for her entitlement to retirement benefits under the CBA.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to furnish the respondent employer with a copy of the appeal memorandum justifies the dismissal of the appeal. Whether the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits under Section 1, Article XXIV of the CBA.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the NLRC and reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The respondent company was ordered to pay the petitioner's retirement benefits in accordance with the CBA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum: The Court held that the failure to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum to the respondent employer is a mere formal lapse and not a jurisdictional defect that would justify the dismissal of the appeal. This ruling is supported by previous jurisprudence, such as J.D. Magpayo Customs Brokerage v. NLRC and Estrada v. National Labor Relations Commission, where similar dismissals on technicalities were set aside. The Court emphasized that dismissing an appeal on a purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate for the protection of labor, citing Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. to underscore the supremacy of constitutional rights over subordinate rules and regulations. Therefore, the appeal should have been given due course. On the entitlement to retirement benefits: The Court found that petitioner had acquired a vested right to retirement benefits under Section 1, Article XXIV of the CBA. At the time she was assigned to work as a security guard in May 1979, she had already rendered nineteen (19) years of service, exceeding the ten (10) to fifteen (15) years service requirement stipulated in the CBA. This vested right is considered property protected by due process, and the company could not arbitrarily deprive her of it by reassigning her to a position excluded from the CBA coverage. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioner was never extended a formal appointment as a security guard, meaning she should have been considered as still holding her previous position for purposes of her retirement benefits. Thus, she is entitled to the retirement benefits provided for in the CBA.
Main Doctrine
Failure to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum to the employer is a mere formal lapse, not a jurisdictional defect, and does not justify the dismissal of the appeal, especially when such dismissal would contravene the constitutional mandate on protection to labor. Furthermore, an employee who has acquired a vested right to retirement benefits cannot be arbitrarily deprived of such right by a subsequent reassignment to a position excluded from the CBA coverage.