Intel Technology Philippines Inc v NLRC & Cabiles February 5, 2014

FACTS:
 Cabiles was initially hired by Intel Phil as an Inventory Analyst. He was then promoted several
times and was assigned at Intel Arizona and Intel Chengdu. He later on applied at Intel
Semiconductor Limited HongKong (Intel HK).
 Cabiles was offered the position of Finance Manager by Intel HK. Before he accepted it, he
emailed Intel Phil, asking for the consequences of accepting the offer of Intel HK. He asked about
the clearance requirements he needed to fulfill before he moves as a “local hire” of HK. He also
clarified about his retirement benefits, asking for any possibility for his number of employment
years (9.5 yrs) to be rounded up to 10 years for him to receive his retirement benefits.
 Intel Phils replied saying that Cabiles would not be eligible to receive the retirement benefits
given that he did not reach the 10 years of service requirement at the time he moved to Hong
Kong. In case he moves back to the Philippines, his total tenure would be computed less on the
period he was out of the Philippines.
 Cabiles signed the job offer. Intel Phil then issued Cabiles his “Intel Final Pay Separation
Voucher” of P 165 857.62. Cabiles also executed a “Release, Waiver and Quitclaim” (Waiver) in
favor of Intel Phil, acknowledging the receipt as full and complete settlement of all benefits due
him.
 After 7 months of employment with Intel HK, Cabiles resigned.
 Two years after, Cabiles filed for non-payment of retirement benefits and for moral and
exemplary damages with the NLRC. He insisted that he was employed by Intel Phils for 10 years
and 5 months (a period including his 7 month stint at Intel HK).
 LA: ordered Intel Phil to pay Cabiles retirement pay with legal interest and atty’s fees. LA held
that Cabiles’ move to Intel HK was similar to when he was assigned to Intel Arizona and Intel
Chengdu. Cabiles cannot be faulted if he was made to believe that he was not entitled to any
retirement benefits. Finally, the waiver made by Cabiles was of no bar for claiming his
retirement pay since such covered only the last salary and commutation of sick leaves and
vacation leaves to the exclusion of retirement benefits.
 NLRC: Affirmed LA. The decision to move to Intel HK was not definitive proof of permanent
severance of ties with Intel Phil. With regard to the waiver, NLRC disregarded it because it was
signed when the retirement pay had not yet accrued.
 Pending disposition in the CA, NLRC issued a writ of execution against Intel Phil. Intel Phil paid
but asked the CA for an order to restitute the amount. CA noted without action such supplement
to the petition for certiorari and denied the MR. CA affirmed NLRC.

ISSUE: WON Cabiles is entitled to receive the retirement benefits? NO

HELD:
No. Cabiles says that his employment with Intel HK was a continuation of his service with Intel Phil,
seeing it as an assignment by his principal employer similar to his assignment to Intel Arizona and
Chengdu. Thus he claims that he had completed the 10 years required to qualify for retirement
benefits.

SC agrees with Intel Phil and reverses the decision of the CA. Resignation is the formal
relinquishment of an office, the overt act of which is coupled with an intent to renounce. This intent
could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation. In this
case, Cabiles (while on a temporary assignment at Intel Chengdu) was offered by Intel HK a job of
Finance Manager. Cabiles wrote Intel Phil manifesting two main concerns: a) clearance procedures;
and b) the probability of getting his retirement pay despite the non-completion of the required 10
years of employment service.

Beyond these concerns, however, was his acceptance that he would be ending his relationship with
Intel Phil. as his employer. The words he used - local hire, close, clearance – denote nothing but his
firm resolve to voluntarily disassociate himself from Intel Phil. and take on new responsibilities
with Intel HK. Despite the non-favorable reply re: retirement concerns, Cabiles still accepted the job
offer which offered a compensation pay of HK $ 942, 500 (amount bigger than what he would
receive under the plan). All these are indicative of the clearest intent of Cabiles to sever ties with
Intel Phil.

No Secondment Contract Exists

Cabiles views his employment in Hong Kong as an assignment or an extension of his employment
with Intel Phil. Such argument speaks of the “theory of secondment” and the court is not convinced.

The continuity, existence or termination of an employer-employee relationship in a typical

secondment contract or any employment contract for that matter is measured by the following
yardsticks:
1. the selection and engagement of the employee;
2. the payment of wages;
3. the power of dismissal; and
4. the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct
All of the above ceased when he assumed duties with Intel HK. Intel HK became his new employer
providing his compensation. Cabiles was then subject to HK labor laws, the rights appurtenant
thereto, including the right of Intel HK to fire him on available grounds. Lastly, Intel HK had control
and supervision over him as its new Finance Manager. Although in various instances, his move to
Hong Kong was referred to as an "assignment," it bears stressing that it was categorized as a
"permanent transfer." The difference between Intel Chengdu and Intel Arizona from Intel HK is the
lack of intervention of Intel Phil. In the 2 previous transfers, Intel Phil remained as the principal
employer of Cabiles.

Release, Waiver and Quitclaim Valid Terms Are Clear

The waiver executed by Cabiles was valid. According to Goodrich Manufacturing Corp v Ativo, “Not
all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily
entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not
later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the
waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are
unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. Xxx”

Here, the court sees no clear evidence in the records showing that Cabiles was constrained into
signing the document. It cannot be said that Cabiles did not fully understand the consequences of
signing the Waiver. Being a person well-versed in matters of finance, it would have been impossible
for him not to have comprehended the consequences of signing a waiver. The Court then declares it
as valid and binding between Cabiles and Intel Phil.

NLRC pointed out that even if the Waiver was valid, it cannot cover the claims for the retirement
pay because it had not yet accrued at the time of signing. SC does not agree. The waiver was clear
that all claims in the present and future were waived in consideration of his receipt of the amount
of P 165 857.62. And even if the Waiver was invalid, Cabiles would still be disqualified for not
completing the required 10 years.