Gamogamo v. Philippine National Oil Company Shipping and Transport Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cayo F. Gamogamo was employed with the Department of Health (DOH) from January 23, 1963, to November 2, 1977. On November 9, 1977, he was hired by Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LUSTEVECO), a private domestic corporation. Respondent PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC) acquired LUSTEVECO's shipping business, and petitioner was absorbed by PNOC on August 1, 1979, continuing his service as company dentist. PNOC assumed petitioner's service credits with LUSTEVECO but not with DOH. Procedural History: In 1993, PNOC subsidiaries, including Respondent, were approved for privatization, leading to a Manpower Reduction Program offering two months' pay for every year of service for retrenched employees. Petitioner, due for mandatory retirement in April 1995, was denied inclusion in the retrenchment program because he held a permanent position and was nearing retirement. He retired on April 1, 1995, receiving P512,524.15, equivalent to one month's pay for every year of service. Subsequently, other employees in permanent positions were retrenched under the program. Petitioner filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing his DOH service should be included, entitling him to two months' pay per year of service. The NLRC ruled in favor of petitioner, considering his DOH service creditable. PNOC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the NLRC decision, ruling that DOH service was not creditable for retirement benefits computation. Petitioner then filed the present petition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner contends that his service with the DOH should be considered creditable service for computing his retirement pay and that he was discriminated against in the application of the Manpower Reduction Program. He argues that LUSTEVECO and PNOC were government-owned and controlled corporations under Civil Service Law prior to the 1987 Constitution, making his service continuous. He cites a Civil Service Commission opinion regarding Petron Corporation and Republic Act No. 7699. He also claims discrimination because Dr. Rogelio Buena, also in a permanent position and nearing retirement, was retrenched under the program with two months' pay per year of service, while he received only one month's pay per year.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner's prior service with the Department of Health (DOH) can be tacked to his service with PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation (PNOC) for the purpose of computing retirement pay. Whether petitioner was discriminated against in the application of PNOC's Manpower Reduction Program.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Petitioner's service with the DOH cannot be tacked to his service with PNOC for retirement pay computation. Petitioner was not discriminated against.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of tacking service with DOH to PNOC service: The Court ruled in the negative. The retirement scheme of PNOC explicitly states that creditable service refers to the retiree's continuous years of service with the Company. Since retirement pay comes from PNOC's funds, it is natural for PNOC to disregard service in another company. Petitioner's argument that his prior employers were government-owned and controlled corporations subject to Civil Service Law was rejected. The Court reiterated that government-owned or controlled corporations are subject to Civil Service Law only if they have original charters. PNOC and LUSTEVECO, not having original charters, are covered by the Labor Code, not the Civil Service Law. Therefore, the opinion of the Civil Service Commission regarding Petron Corporation was not binding on PNOC. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 7699, concerning the totalization of service credits, applies only when a retiree does not qualify for benefits in either the GSIS or SSS, which was not the case here as petitioner may be entitled to GSIS benefits. The Court also noted that petitioner signed a Release and Undertaking upon receiving his retirement pay, waiving all claims against PNOC, and found no evidence of coercion or unconscionable terms in this quitclaim. On the issue of discrimination: The Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the denial of petitioner's claim of discrimination. The Court noted that the Manpower Reduction Program's primary consideration at the time of petitioner's retirement in 1995 was redundancy, a criterion petitioner did not meet. The subsequent retrenchment of Dr. Buena and Mrs. Reyes in 1996 occurred under different circumstances, driven by new cost-saving strategies implemented by a new president to address business reversals. PNOC had the prerogative to amend its policies to meet business contingencies. The Court found that petitioner failed to demonstrate actual discrimination.
Main Doctrine
Service rendered in a government agency cannot be tacked to service in a government-owned and controlled corporation without an original charter for the purpose of computing retirement pay, as the latter is not covered by Civil Service Law.