489 Phil. 501
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
“I am writing formally to confirm various details about your forthcoming training assignment as a Journalist in Singapore. In this appointment you will report to Mr. Francis Daniel, News Editor, ASEAN.Again, on December 7, 1983, Addison wrote petitioner regarding her social security and pension funds during her stay in Singapore, thus:x x x
From 16 January your Philippine salary will cease and you will receive a Singapore salary of Singapore Dollars 3,500 per month, paid 13 times a year. In addition, the company will provide you with furnished accommodation x x x.x x x
I confirm that your home base will continue to be Manila and should you return there at the end of this assignment or following subsequent assignments your terms and conditions of employment would revert to those of local staff.x x x”[4]
“It has been agreed that it would not be appropriate for you to join the Singaporean Central Provident Fund since Singapore is not your home base and the duration of your assignment is expected to be one year. You should therefore join the Retirement Benefit Plan which is being introduced in the Philippines with effect from 1 October 1983. It is a non-contributory fund. For the purpose of calculating the Company contribution to the retirement plan, you will retain a notional Philippine salary of Peso 5,980 per month payable 13 times a year. Your notional salary will be reviewed on 1 October in line with other Manila office staff.”[5]Petitioner stayed in Singapore up to December 1985. In a letter of April 15, 1985, Addison informed her of the corresponding increases in her actual and notional salaries, thus:
“Following your Singapore salary increase in January, I am writing to confirm that your notional Peso salary has been increased to 6,900 per month and pension contributions will be adjusted accordingly.”[6]On March 26 to June 4, 1986, petitioner was assigned to Reuters Hongkong. Thereafter, or in July, 1986, she was appointed correspondent in Sri Lanka and that her peso salary was increased to P12,600.00 per month, thus:
While in Sri Lanka, petitioner’s notional peso salary was increased twice.“x x x
With immediate effect, you are appointed Correspondent, Sri Lanka reporting to Mr. Dalton de Silva.
From 1 October 1986, you will be paid a salary of Rupees 212,000 per annum which will be drawn locally and which will be subject to Sri Lankan income tax from the same date.x x x
Your home base will continue to be the Philippines and should you return there at the end of this assignment or any subsequent assignment your terms and conditions of employment would be those of national staff. You will remain a member of the pension plan for Philippines-based and contributions to be based on your notional peso salary. I am pleased to confirm that from 1 October 1986 your Peso salary has been increased to Pesos 12,600 per month.x x x”[7]
“Mr. Burns in Hong Kong and we in Manila have thoroughly reviewed the issues you raised and have reached the following conclusions:Eventually, petitioner filed with the Office of the Labor Arbiter, NCR, a money claim against respondent, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-05002-92.
a) My initial reply to you on your benefits which the bank computed is only for six years. But the final amount you got was computed at seven years as corrected by the bank after your recomputation request. Bank computation attached.
b) We appreciate your views about the notional salary issue, but cannot agree with them since the concept of a notional salary is standard practice globally and the notional salary is routinely mentioned in assignment and salary increase letters including letters to you.
c) P Burns and V Berger do however believe there is a good case for increasing the final salary on which your retirement payment is computed. The figure has been raised from Pesos 305,000 to Pesos 350,750 – an increase of 15 per cent to take account of likely salary rises up to your final departure date. I have asked the bank to compute the difference based on this higher final salary and we will pay you the extra when this has been done.
d) Though the history of your assignments/movements was complicated, P Burns has ruled that you definitely are entitled to a resettlement allowance. At the time this stood at STG 1,750 but he has recommended we pay you the present rate of STG 2,050 in peso equivalent. We can send the cheque to you in Bonn, but please advise if you prefer another payment method.”[8]
“WHEREFORE, for the reasons aforediscussed, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the complaint DISMISSED for lack of merit.Forthwith, petitioner filed her motion for reconsideration which was granted by the NLRC. In its Decision/Resolution dated August 29, 1997, it dismissed respondent Reuters’ appeal.[13] Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order dated January 15, 1998.[14]
SO ORDERED.”[12]
“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) dated August 29, 1997 and January 09, 1998 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Commission’s Decision of May 30, 1997 is REINSTATED with the modification that private respondent be paid her disturbance and resettlement grant. No pronouncement as to costs.In finding for respondent Reuters, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated as follows:
SO ORDERED.”[17]
“In this case, petitioner, on its own volition, established a retirement plan for its Philippine-hired employees. The rules governing the plan are denominated as ‘The Reuters Limited, Philippines Retirement Benefit Plan’ (Annex ‘1’, ibid.). The plan is totally funded by the company but employee-participants thereof are given the option to contribute thereto if they wish to. (Private respondent opted not to contribute to the fund.) The company’s contribution to the fund of the plan is ten percent (10%) of the Basic Monthly Salary of each participant starting October 1, 1983 (Section 2[a][1], Article VI, The Reuters Limited, Philippines Retirement Benefit Plan; Annex ‘1’, p. 37, ibid.). The rules, however, are not clear as to the computation of the company’s contribution to the fund with respect to participants assigned overseas.Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Appellate Court in a Resolution dated June 21, 2001.[19]
If the rules were solely to be considered, there is reason to uphold private respondent’s claim that the computation of her retirement benefits must be based on her basic annual salary while stationed abroad which was much higher than the notional salary imposed on her. However, considering the surrounding circumstances of this case, We are inclined to agree with petitioner when it insists that the computation of said benefits must be based on private respondent’s notional Philippine salary.
We recall that from the very start of her first assignment overseas, private respondent was apprised of a notional Philippine salary upon which the company’s contribution to her retirement fund would be based (Letter dated December 7, 1983; Annex ‘3’, p. 47, ibid.). And the records are clear that private respondent was always informed of said notional Philippine salary whenever she was to be transferred to her next overseas assignment or when there were increases in her salary, both actual and notional (Annexex ‘4’ to ‘7’, pp. 47-52, ibid.). It has also been established that this notional salary upon which is based the company’s contribution to the retirement plan of a local employee detailed abroad is a practice of Reuters worldwide (pp. 85-92, ibid.) and that private respondent was not being discriminated against when such was applied to her case. From these attendant factors, it can be gleaned that imputing a notional salary is actually a company policy which should be deemed incorporated in the rules governing petitioner’s Retirement Plan.
Further, that it is the notional salary and not the actual salary upon which private respondent’s retirement benefit should be based is also justified by the application of the rules on construction. Petitioner’s retirement plan is that agreement between the employer and employee mentioned in the law in force at that time on employer-initiated retirement benefits (Article 287, Labor Code, prior to its amendment by RA No. 7641). Since only the company is obliged to contribute to the fund of the retirement plan, the agreement is a gratuitous contract between the petitioner and the employees qualified thereto. As such, it should be construed in a manner that the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail (Article 1378, New Civil Code). Considering that the application of the notional Philippine salary will result in the least transmission of rights and interests between the parties, it is that interpretation that is best in accord with the law.x x x
With respect to private respondent’s claim for resettlement and disturbance grant, it is Our opinion that she is entitled to it and that the same has not yet prescribed. x x x ”[18]
Respondent maintains that petitioner fails to raise any question of law, hence, the petition should be dismissed.“I
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REINSTATING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE NLRC WHICH REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER BELOW.II
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE NLRC WHICH DISMISSED PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S APPEAL FOR HAVING BEEN FILED OUT OF TIME.III
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO HER CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION UNDER THE COMPANY’S RETIREMENT PLAN.”[20]
"Article 287. Retirement. – Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.The first paragraph of the above provisions deals with the retirement age of an employee established in (a) a collective bargaining agreement or (b) 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." (Emphasis supplied)
"Sec. 14. Retirement benefits. – (a) An employee who is retired pursuant to a bona fide retirement plan or in accordance with the applicable individual or collective agreement or established employer policy shall be entitled to all the retirement benefits provided therein . . ."Thus, in the instant case, respondent based petitioner’s retirement benefits on its Plan and established policy, which is in accord with the above provision. Consequently, petitioner’s theory that the computation of her retirement benefits should be based on her basic annual salary while stationed abroad is untenable.