G.R. No.

181995
July 16, 2012
BIBIANO C. ELEGIR, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.
REYES, J.:

FACTS: Petitioner Bibiano C. Elegir (petitioner) was hired by Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) as a commercial
pilot. Petitioner was sent for training at Boeing in Seattle, Washington, United States of America on May 8,
1995, to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge in handling the new aircraft acquired. On November 5,
1996, after rendering twenty-five (25) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of continuous service,
the petitioner applied for optional retirement authorized under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
between PAL and the Airline Pilots Association of the
Philippines (ALPAP), in which he was a member of good standing. In response, PAL asked him to reconsider
his decision, asseverating that the company has yet to recover the full value of the costs of his training. It
warned him that if he leaves PAL before he has rendered service for at least three (3) years, it shall be
constrained to deduct the costs of his training from his retirement pay.
Upon securing his clearance, however, he was informed that the costs of his training will be deducted from
his retirement pay, which will be computed at the rate of P 5,000.00 per year of service. PAL refused to
yield to the petitioners demand and maintained that his retirement pay should be based on PAL-ALPAP
Retirement Plan of 1967 (PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan) and that he should reimburse the company with the
proportionate costs of his training. Thus, on August 27, 1997, the petitioner filed a complaint for nonpayment of retirement pay, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees against PAL.
LA ruling: The LA ratiocinated that PAL had no right to withhold the payment of the petitioners retirement
benefits simply because he retired from service before the lapse of three (3) years. To begin with, there
was no document evidencing the fact that the petitioner was required to stay with PAL for three (3) years
from the completion of his training or that he was bound to reimburse the company of the costs of his
training should he retire from service before the completion of the period.
NLRC ruling: NLRC took a different stance and modified the decision of the LA.
. A distinction was made between a pilot who retires at the age of sixty and another who retires earlier. The
Supreme Court was explicit when it declared:
"A pilot who retires after twenty years of service or after flying 20,000 hours would still be in the prime of
his life and at the peak of his career, compared to one who retires at the age of 60 years old."
Furthermore, petitioner would not be getting less if his retirement pay is computed on the PAL-ALPAP
retirement plan rather than the formula provided by the Labor Code.
The Decision of public respondent dated March 18, 2002 and its Order of June 30, 2003 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The retirement benefits of petitioner Capt. Bibiano Elegir shall be based on the 1967 PAL-ALPAP
Retirement Plan and the PAL Pilots Retirement Benefit Plan and the balance still due him, pegged at
P385,730.97.
SO ORDERED retirement plan rather than the formula provided by the Labor Code.

Thus, this case.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the petitioners retirement benefits should be computed based on Article 287 of the Labor Code
or on PALs retirement plans;
2.Whether the petitioner should reimburse PAL with the proportionate costs of his training; and
3. Whether interest should be imposed on the monetary award in favor of the petitioner.

HELD:
1.The determining factor in choosing which retirement scheme to apply is still superiority in terms of
benefits provided. Thus, even if there is an existing CBA but the same does not provide for retirement
benefits equal or superior to that which is provided under Article 287 of the Labor Code, the latter will

apply. In this manner, the employee can be assured of a reasonable amount of retirement pay for his
sustenance.
2.whether the petitioner should be obliged to reimburse PAL with the costs of his training, the ruling in
Almario v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.28 is controlling. Essentially, in the mentioned case, this Court recognized
the right of PAL to recoup the costs of a pilots training in the form of service for a period of at least three
(3) years. This right emanated from the CBA between PAL and ALPAP, which must be complied with good
faith by the parties.
3.Further, to allow the petitioner to leave the company before it has fulfilled the reasonable expectation of
service on his part will amount to unjust enrichment. Pertinently, Article 22 of the New Civil Code states:
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or
comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return
the same to him.
There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when a
person retains the money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and
good conscience. Two conditions must concur: (1) a person is unjustly benefited; and (2) such benefit is
derived at the expense of or with damages to another. The main objective of the principle of unjust
enrichment is to prevent one from enriching oneself at the expense of another. It is commonly accepted
that this doctrine simply means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at
anothers expense. The enrichment may consist of a patrimonial, physical, or moral advantage, so long as
it is appreciable in money. It must have a correlative prejudice, disadvantage or injury to the plaintiff which
may consist, not only of the loss of the property or the deprivation of its enjoyment, but also of the nonpayment of compensation for a prestation or service rendered to the defendant without intent to donate on
the part of the plaintiff, or the failure to acquire something what the latter would have obtained.

G.R. No. 176959

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, INC. (as successor-in-interest of the banking operations of Global Business Bank, Inc.
formerly known as PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION). Petitioner,

- versus THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RIVERSIDE MILLS CORPORATION PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND, represented by
ERNESTO TANCHI, JR., CESAR SALIGUMBA, AMELITA SIMON, EVELINA OCAMPO and CARLITOS Y. LIM, RMC UNPAID
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
RMC Respondents.

FACTS: On November 1, 1973, RMC established a Provident and Retirement Plan[4] (Plan) for its regular
employees. Under the Plan, RMC and its employees shall each contribute 2% of the employees current
basic monthly salary, with RMCs contribution to increase by 1% every five (5) years up to a maximum of
5%. The contributions shall form part of the provident fund (the Fund) which shall be held, invested and
distributed by the Commercial Bank and Trust Company. In 1984, RMC ceased business operations.
On June 2, 1998, during the trial, the Board passed a Resolution in court declaring that the Fund belongs
exclusively to the employees of RMC. On June 27, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of
respondents. The trial court declared invalid the reversion and application of the proceeds of the Fund to
the outstanding obligation of RMC to petitioner bank.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court. It held that the Fund is distinct from RMCs account in
petitioner bank and may not be used except for the benefit of the members of RMCPRF. Citing Paragraph
13 of the Plan, the appellate court stressed that the assets of the Fund shall not revert to the Company
until after the liabilities of the Plan had been satisfied. Further, the Agreement was specific that upon the
termination of the Agreement, petitioner shall deliver the Fund to the Board or its successor, and not to
RMC as trustor.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the proceeds of the RMCPRF may be applied to satisfy RMCs debt to Philbank.
HELD: A trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of equitable
duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of another. A
trust is either express or implied. Express trusts are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties
create, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.
Employees trusts or benefit plans are intended to provide economic assistance to employees upon the
occurrence of certain contingencies, particularly, old age retirement, death, sickness, or disability. They
give security against certain hazards to which members of the Plan may be exposed. They are
independent and additional sources of protection for the working group and established for their exclusive
benefit and for no other purpose. Here, while the Plan provides for a reversion of the Fund to RMC, this
cannot be done until all the liabilities of the Plan have been paid. And when RMC ceased operations in
1984, the Fund became liable for the payment not only of the benefits of qualified retirees at the time of
RMCs closure but also of those who were separated from work as a consequence of the closure.

[G.R. No. 127718. March 2, 2000]

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, ABELARDO SANGADAN, LUCIANO RAMOS, NESTOR TILASAN, GREGORIO TILASAN,
JOAQUIN GARCIA, ROGELIO SABAITAN, CASTRO LEONARDO, PILARDO POTENCIANO, RONILLO POTENCIANO, SANTIAGO
SABAITAN, JOVENCIO BARTOLOME, JUANITO CONCERMAN, GEORGE TUMILAS, PATROCINIO DOMINGO, AVELINO
FRANCISCO, MELITON SANGADAN, ALEXANDER GERONIMO, JOAQUIN GERONIMO, RAMIL MACASO, LAMBERTO JOVEN,

CRISTINO GARINA, SAMMY GANTAAN, NACIAL USTALAN, EDWIN USTALAN, ROLAND POTENCIANO, RODY CONCERMAN,
ELMER DOMINGO, ARNAGUEZ SANGADAN, UNDING BOLENG, EDUARDO BOLENG, ROBERTO PANEO and HENRY
SANGADAN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (5th Division), PATALON COCONUT ESTATE and/or
CHARLIE REITH as General Manager and SUSIE GALLE REITH, as owner, respondents.
DE LEON, JR., J.:

FACTS: Petitioners are bona fide members of the National Federation of Labor (NFL), a legitimate labor
organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment. They were employed by private
respondents Charlie Reith and Susie Galle Reith, general manager and owner, respectively, of the 354-hectare
Patalon Coconut Estate located at Patalon, Zamboanga City. Patalon Coconut Estate was engaged in growing
agricultural products and in raising livestock.
In 1988, Congress enacted into law Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), which mandated the compulsory acquisition of all covered agricultural lands
for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries under the so-called Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Programme (CARP).
Pursuant to R.A. No. 6657, the Patalon Coconut Estate was awarded to the Patalon Estate Agrarian Reform
Association (PEARA), a cooperative accredited by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), of which
petitioners are members and co-owners.
As a result of this acquisition, private respondents shut down the operation of the Patalon Coconut Estate and
the employment of the petitioners was severed on July 31, 1994. Petitioners did not receive any separation pay.
On April 25, 1995, petitioners filed individual complaints before the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Zamboanga City, praying for their reinstatement with full
backwages on the ground that they were illegally dismissed. The petitioners were represented by their labor
organization, the NFL.
The RAB dismissed the complaint, which was affirmed but modified by the NLRC.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not an employer that was compelled to cease its operation because of the compulsory
acquisition by the government of its land for purposes of agrarian reform, is liable to pay separation pay to its
affected employees.
HELD: The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioners contend that they are entitled to separation pay citing Article 283 of the Labor Code which reads:
"ART. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also
terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the
establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due
to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be

entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1)
month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent
losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due
to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1)
month pay or at least one-half () month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A
fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year."
Article 283 of the Labor Code does not contemplate a situation where the closure of the business establishment
is forced upon the employer and ultimately for the benefit of the employees.
The resulting closure of the business establishment, Patalon Coconut Estate, when it was placed under CARP,
occurred through no fault of the private respondents.
While the Constitution provides that "the State x x x shall protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare", that constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy
capital and management. Thus, the capital and management sectors must also be protected under a regime of
justice and the rule of law.
PETITION DISMISSED. coincidence