2013 (Labor Law) Bar Exam Questions: Question 8

[Read and answer/discuss the question below. Or go back to Labor Law Exam Instructions or the 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results; Jump to Labor Law Essay Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 79 and 10; Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18]


After thirty (30) years of service, Beta Company compulsorily retired Albert at age 65 pursuant to the company’s Retirement Plan. Albert was duly paid his full retirement benefits of one (1) month pay for every year of service under the Plan. Thereafter, out of compassion, the company alowed Albert to continue working and paid him his old monthly salary rate, but without the allowances that he used to enjoy.

After five (5) years under this arrangement, the company finally severed all employment relations with Albert; he was declared fully retired in a fitting ceremony but the company did  not give him any further retirement benefits. Albert through this treatment unfair as he had rendered full sevice at his usual hours in the past five (5) years. Thus, he filed a complaint for the allowances that were not paid to him, and for retirement benefits for his additional five (5) working years, based either on the company Retirement Plan or the Retirement Pay Law, whichever is applicable.

(A) After Albert’s retirement at age 65, should he be considered a regular employee entitled to all his previous salaries and benefits when the company allowed him to continue working? (4%)

(B) Is he entitled to additional retirement benefits for the additional service he rendered after age 65? (4%)


    1. Haha, kakabasa ko ng mga answer ko dito naalala ko na yung naisagot ko which does not really have sufficient basis other than what i remembered from my professor though i am not sure kung tama pa ba yung naalala ko, he said once an employee is retired he will be considered forever retired and if rehired he does not necessarily revert to his prior status unless the employer consents. But to be sure I also discussed the 2 general modes of becoming a regular employee which Would not apply dahil nga sa first basis ko, para lang hindi ma bokya

  1. as to A i answerd yes he is a regular employee since he continued to work beyond the period of retirment. For B he can no longer avail of the retirement plan/under the law, since i remembered a case na ang sabi ng court retirement benefits can only be availed of once.

  2. The employee can recover from both. Baka ang iniisip ni Not sure yung exemption sa tax ng retirement benefits, which can only be availed of once.

  3. Art. 287. Retirement. – Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or 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: Provided, however, That an employee’s retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreements shall not be less than those provided herein.

    it allows entitlement to retirement benefits twice: once under the company’s retirement plan and another under special law like SSS.

    doon sa Esco case, safirst retirement ni Pedrosa, nakakuha sya ng retirement benefits under SSS. on her second retirement, since walang CBA provision or retirement plan ang Esco, the SC justly and equitably upheld the grant of separation by the NLRC.

  4. Pero kung ganon ang ruling dun hindi siya magaaply in this case, kasi ang basis dun is yung sss vs. Company. I this case kung may retirement plan na ang company he retirement law will not be applicable. Kasi it is only when there are no retirement plan will the retirement law be applicable. Yun pagkakaalala ko sa sabi ng prof ko but then again what i remembered might be wrong. Hehehe

    1. Sa case kasi ang una diba inavail niya is retirement under the sss law which is a social legislation. In the problem kasi humihingi siya ng retirement under either the retirement plan or retirement law. So hindi mag fall squarely under the facts of the case ang esco vs nlrc. Anyway i am considering na mali nako here though kasi mas may legal basis answe niyo. Hasle talaga na mix up ko sa tax….

  5. there is no queastion na pwede mag-claim once under SSS and once under company’s retirement plan.

    ang hindi ko lang sure ay if pwedeng mag-avail twice either under SSS/special law or under company’s retirement plan/CBA — ito yung tinatahak ng facts sa essay at kung saan nakabase ang second question.

  6. A) Regular employee – nagdefine lang ako ng ano ang regular employee (necessary sa business etc.)

    B) Parang ang sagot ko dito pwede siyang mag-avail uli. Di ko na inelaborate kung ano basis basta sabi ko based lang dun sa years rendered after his first retirement. Sabi ko, prejudicial sa rights ng worker kung mawawalan siya ng benefits when he has worked for it naman.

    I just realized pinakanahirapan ako sa Labor. Is it just me, or hindi talaga smack full-on na based sa cases at sa codal ang mga questions. Saka nagulat ako sa laki ng points sa Labor Essay, yung mga 8 points kaya nakakakaba na maglagay ng doctrine kasi baka mali ma-cite ko.

  7. ako din nagsgot na considered pa rin cya na regular employee.but as to the other issue. an eployee can avail a retirement once specially compulsory age na.din nag elaborate pa ako. but di ko maalala the entire answer ko.hehe

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *