Abillar v. People's Television Network
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Adelio Abillar was employed as a writer by People's Television Network, Inc. (PTNI) from September 16, 1994, to May 15, 2011. In March 2011, petitioner expressed his intention to avail of early retirement under a "government rationalization plan" and requested an indefinite leave of absence without pay. PTNI, through its General Manager (GM) Caluag, accepted his early retirement effective May 15, 2011. However, when the early retirement program was implemented in August 2012, petitioner discovered he was not included in the list of beneficiaries and his request for reinstatement was rejected. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Urgent Prayer for Reinstatement before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), alleging that GM Caluag advised him to avail of early retirement due to an impending early retirement package. The CSC initially dismissed the complaint, finding that petitioner voluntarily retired. Upon reconsideration, the CSC granted the complaint, ruling that PTNI acted in bad faith by excluding petitioner and that the P60,000.00 received was insufficient. The CA initially agreed with the CSC's finding of bad faith but, upon MR, amended its decision, affirming the CSC's dismissal of the complaint, stating petitioner failed to meet the minimum service years under R.A. No. 10390. The Petition: Petitioner sought review, arguing he was entitled to early retirement benefits under R.A. No. 10390 and that PTNI acted in bad faith. He claimed he was induced to retire and believed his application was approved with assurance of benefits. Respondent countered that no law provided for separation benefits at the time of his retirement and that he voluntarily severed employment.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to early retirement benefits under R.A. No. 10390. Whether respondent's act of excluding petitioner from the coverage of R.A. No. 10390 was attended by bad faith.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Amended Decision dated June 23, 2017, and the Resolution dated November 29, 2017, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142722 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether petitioner is entitled to early retirement benefits under R.A. No. 10390: The Court ruled that petitioner is not entitled to the retirement benefits provided under R.A. No. 10390. Retirement is defined as a bilateral act, a voluntary agreement to sever employment. Petitioner voluntarily terminated his employment relationship with respondent by applying for early retirement. Crucially, R.A. No. 10390, which provides for separation and retirement benefits, was signed into law on March 14, 2013, nearly two years after petitioner filed his application for early retirement on March 23, 2011. Therefore, the provisions of R.A. No. 10390, including its early retirement program, were not yet in effect at the time of petitioner's retirement. Furthermore, Section 19 of R.A. No. 10390 requires that the employee must have rendered at least one year of service at the time of the effectivity of the Act, a condition petitioner failed to meet as his retirement was effective May 15, 2011, prior to the law's enactment. On whether respondent's act of excluding petitioner was attended by bad faith: The Court held that the respondent did not act in bad faith. The burden of proving bad faith rests on the party alleging it, and mere allegations are insufficient. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that GM Caluag influenced him to avail of early retirement or that respondent committed to grant him benefits under a plan that was still in its formative stage and not yet enacted into law. Petitioner's own statements indicate he was aware of the absence of an existing retirement package and proceeded with his application, mistakenly assuming his request would be granted. Bad faith requires a breach of duty through motive, interest, or ill will, which was not proven. The acceptance of his retirement application by GM Caluag was considered an error in judgment made in good faith. As a manifestation of good faith, respondent paid petitioner his last salary and terminal leave pay.
Main Doctrine
An employee who voluntarily retires based on an anticipated rationalization plan, which is not yet enacted into law at the time of retirement, is not entitled to benefits under a subsequent law (R.A. No. 10390) that provides for such benefits, especially if the employee does not meet the minimum service requirements under the new law. The employer's acceptance of the retirement application, without a commitment to grant benefits not yet existing, does not constitute bad faith.