Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • GVM Vs NLRC

    Загружено:

    wesleybooks
    106 просмотров1 страница
    Dulce, a security guard of 28 years, resigned at age 64 and sought retirement benefits. His employers denied liability since they had no retirement policy or collective bargaining agreement providing such benefits. The court held that under Article 287 of the Labor Code, employees are only entitled to retirement benefits that are specifically granted by existing laws, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, or established employer policies. As the employers had no such retirement provision, Dulce was not entitled to retirement pay upon his voluntary resignation.

    Исходное описание:

    case digest

    Оригинальное название

    gvm vs nlrc

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Dulce, a security guard of 28 years, resigned at age 64 and sought retirement benefits. His employers denied liability since they had no retirement policy or collective bargaining agreement providing such benefits. The court held that under Article 287 of the Labor Code, employees are only entitled to retirement benefits that are specifically granted by existing laws, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, or established employer policies. As the employers had no such retirement provision, Dulce was not entitled to retirement pay upon his voluntary resignation.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    106 просмотров1 страница

    GVM Vs NLRC

    Загружено:

    wesleybooks
    Dulce, a security guard of 28 years, resigned at age 64 and sought retirement benefits. His employers denied liability since they had no retirement policy or collective bargaining agreement providing such benefits. The court held that under Article 287 of the Labor Code, employees are only entitled to retirement benefits that are specifically granted by existing laws, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, or established employer policies. As the employers had no such retirement provision, Dulce was not entitled to retirement pay upon his voluntary resignation.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    GVM Security and Protective Agency vs NLRC and Dulce (Retirement pay)

    GR 102157

    Facts:
    Dulce was a security guard employed by petitioners since 1958. After 28 years of service, he tendered his
    resignation. He was then 64 years old. Petitioners paid him P6650 as his “cash deposit” and he executed
    a quitclaim in their favor.

    Dulce then filed a complaint against petitioners for monetary claim, including retirement pay. They denied
    liability since they did not have a company policy or CBA on retirement benefits.

    Issue: W/N a 64-year old employee who voluntarily resigned, is entitled to retirement benefits under the
    Labor Code in the absence of the company retirement plan or CBA or an established company policy on
    such benefits NO

    Held:
    The issue involved in the instant case was settled in Llora Motor, Inc. v. Drilon, 179 SCRA 175, [1989]
    wherein we held that under Article 287 of the Labor Code, entitlement of employees to retirement
    benefits must be specifically granted under existing laws, a collective bargaining agreement or
    employment contract or an established employer policy. Llora Motor, Inc. was reiterated in Abaquin
    Security and Detective Agency, Inc. v. Atienza, 190 SCRA 460 [1990].

    Article 287 of the Labor Code reads as follows:

    Art. 287. Retirement. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established
    in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.

    In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have
    earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements.

    The first paragraph of Article 287 deals with the retirement age of an employee, which is the age
    established in (a) a collective bargaining agreement or (b) other applicable retirement contract.

    As stressed in Llora Motors, Inc., Article 287 does not in itself purport to impose any obligation upon
    employers to set up a retirement scheme for their employees over and above that already established
    under existing laws, like the Social Security Act.

    Вам также может понравиться