29. ALPHA C. JACULBE, Petitioner, vs. SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY,Respondent.

FACTS: Fifty-seven-year-old petitioner has been working for Silliman University for 35 years,
and informed the petitioner that she was due for automatic retirement pursuant to respondent’s
retirement plan which provided that its members could be automatically retired upon reaching
the age of 63 or after 35 years of uninterrupted service.

Petitioner insisted that the compulsory retirement under the plan was tantamount to a dismissal
and be allowed to work until the age of 60 because this was the minimum age at which she could
qualify for SSS pension. Respondent however did not listen to her case, and stood firm on its
decision to retire her, citing “company policy”

Labor Arbiter: respondent guilty of illegal dismissal

NLRC: Reversed and dismissed the case for lack of merit
CA: Affirmed

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s retirement plan imposing automatic retirement after 35
years of service contravene the security of tenure clause in the Constitution and Labor Code.

RULING: Yes. the rules and regulations of respondent’s retirement plan runs afoul of the
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure contained in Art. XIII, also known as the provision
on Social Justice and Human Rights.

The contract fixing for the scheme provided for in the private respondent compulsorily retired
the petitioner not based on the CBA but on the retirement scheme provided for in the private
respondent’s retirement plan. The contract fixing for retirement age as allowed under Art. 287 of
the Labor Code does not exclusively refer to CBA which provides for an agreed retirement age.
The said provision explicitly allows, as well, other applicable employment contract to fix
retirement age.

Moreover, from the language of the respondent’s plan rules, the compulsory nature of both
membership in an contribution to the plan debunked CBa theory that petitioner’s voluntary
contributions were evidence of her willing participation therein. It was through no voluntary act
of her own that petitioner become a member of the plan.

Neither the respondent cited any agreement to justify ts imposition of early retirement age in its
retirement plan. Not only was the petitioner still a good eight years away from the compulsory
retirement age but she was also still fully capable f discharging her duties as shown by the fact
that respondent’s board of trustees seriously considered rehiring her after the effectivity of her
compulsory retirement.