Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 25 views

    5.metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. NLRC, G. R. No.

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    This case involved two former Metrobank employees, Patag and Flora, who retired in 1998 and received retirement benefits under the 1995 Officers' Benefits Memorandum. They requested that if retirement benefits increased in the upcoming 1998-2000 CBA with rank-and-file employees, that their benefits be recalculated at the new rates. Metrobank did not respond. The 1998 CBA increased retirement benefits to 200% effective January 1998. Patag and Flora again requested an adjustment but were denied as they had retired before the June 1998 eligibility date. The NLRC and CA ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court dismissed Metrobank's argument and affirmed the employees were entitled to the additional retirement benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    5.metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. NLRC, G. R. No.

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    25 views2 pages
    This case involved two former Metrobank employees, Patag and Flora, who retired in 1998 and received retirement benefits under the 1995 Officers' Benefits Memorandum. They requested that if retirement benefits increased in the upcoming 1998-2000 CBA with rank-and-file employees, that their benefits be recalculated at the new rates. Metrobank did not respond. The 1998 CBA increased retirement benefits to 200% effective January 1998. Patag and Flora again requested an adjustment but were denied as they had retired before the June 1998 eligibility date. The NLRC and CA ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court dismissed Metrobank's argument and affirmed the employees were entitled to the additional retirement benefits.

    Original Title

    5.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. NLRC, G. R. No.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved two former Metrobank employees, Patag and Flora, who retired in 1998 and received retirement benefits under the 1995 Officers' Benefits Memorandum. They requested that if retirement benefits increased in the upcoming 1998-2000 CBA with rank-and-file employees, that their benefits be recalculated at the new rates. Metrobank did not respond. The 1998 CBA increased retirement benefits to 200% effective January 1998. Patag and Flora again requested an adjustment but were denied as they had retired before the June 1998 eligibility date. The NLRC and CA ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court dismissed Metrobank's argument and affirmed the employees were entitled to the additional retirement benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    25 views2 pages

    5.metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. NLRC, G. R. No.

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    This case involved two former Metrobank employees, Patag and Flora, who retired in 1998 and received retirement benefits under the 1995 Officers' Benefits Memorandum. They requested that if retirement benefits increased in the upcoming 1998-2000 CBA with rank-and-file employees, that their benefits be recalculated at the new rates. Metrobank did not respond. The 1998 CBA increased retirement benefits to 200% effective January 1998. Patag and Flora again requested an adjustment but were denied as they had retired before the June 1998 eligibility date. The NLRC and CA ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court dismissed Metrobank's argument and affirmed the employees were entitled to the additional retirement benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    MBTC v NLRC, GR No.

    152928, June 18, 2009

    Prepared by: BAUTISTA, ARNOLD C.

    TOPIC : CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF LABOR

    FACTS
    Felipe Patag and Bienvenido Flora were former employees of Metrobank who
    availed of the bank’s compulsory retirement plan in February and April 1998,
    respectively. Both of them received their respective retirement benefits as
    provided under the 1995 Officers’ Benefits Memorandum.

    Early in 1998, Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations were on-


    going between Metrobank and its rank and file employees for the period 1998-
    2000. Both of them wrote letters to the bank requesting that their retirement
    benefits be computed at the new rate should there be an increase thereof in
    anticipation of possible changes in officers’ benefits after the signing of the new
    CBA with the rank and file.

    Metrobank did not reply to their requests.

    The records show that since the 1986-1988 CBA, and continuing with each
    CBA concluded thereafter with its rank and file employees, Metrobank would
    issue a Memorandum granting similar or better benefits to its managerial
    employees or officers, retroactive to January 1st of the first year of
    effectivity of the CBA.

    The compulsory retirement benefit for officers was increased from 185% to
    200% effective January 1, 1998, but with the condition that the benefits shall
    only be extended to those who remain in service as of June 15, 1998.

    Subsequent letters were sent to the Bank requesting for adjustments in their
    retirement benefits. In its letter-reply dated September 17, 1998, Metrobank’s
    First Vice-President Paul Lim, Jr. informed Patag and Flora of their ineligibility
    to the improved officers’ benefits as they had already ceased their employment
    and were no longer officers of the bank as of June 15, 1998.

    On Sept. 25, 1998, a consolidated complaint was filed with the Labor Arbiter.
    This was dismissed and appealed to the NLRC which ruled in their favor.

    1
    Metrobank elevated the matter to the CA through a Petition for Certiorari. The
    CA dismissed the same and affirmed the NLRC Resolution. An MR was filed
    but was likewise, denied.

    Hence, a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 was filed.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not petitioners Patag and Flora are entitled to additional retirement
    benefits.

    RULING
    Yes. The Court dismissed MBTC’s averment that the CA’s ruling would result
    in unfair discrimination of other retirees who did not file cases for retirement
    adjustments. The right to file a labor complaint or assert a cause of action
    against an employer is a personal right of each employee. It is most certainly
    not dependent on whether or not other employees similarly situated would also
    file a case against the employer. If there are other employees in the same boat
    as respondents who decided, for whatever reason, not to demand payment of the
    improved benefits,that would be their prerogative and their own look out. It
    should not prejudice respondents or ban them from asserting their rights and
    pursuing their legal remedies against petitioner.

    You might also like