Osalvo v. Court of Appeals

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212667. November 24, 2021.]

MARIA TERESITA A. OSALVO AND PEDRO R. ROBERONTA, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER FOURTEENTH DIVISION AND ST. PAUL COLLEGE OF ILOCOS SUR, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 212667 (Maria Teresita A. Osalvo and Pedro R. Roberonta v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Former Fourteenth Division and St. Paul College of Ilocos Sur). — Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Maria Teresita A. Osalvo (Osalvo) and Pedro R. Roberonta (Roberonta), (collectively, petitioners) is the October 16, 2013 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119247, which granted partially private respondent St. Paul College of Ilocos Sur's (SPC) petition for certiorari and modified the National Labor Relation Commission's (NLRC) October 29, 2010 Decision. 3

The Antecedents

Petitioners were hired as classroom teachers in the Grade School and High School Department, respectively, by SPC sometime in June 1978. Petitioners both rendered service for 30 years prior to their retirement on March 31, 2008 and May 31, 2008, respectively. At the time of her retirement, Osalvo was receiving a monthly salary of P15,391.00. Meanwhile, Roberonta was receiving P13,594 monthly at that time. 4

SPC's computation of the retirement benefits of Osalvo is as follows:

a) Basic Pay
1/2 of P15,391.00	=	P7,695.00
b) 13th month pay
1/12 of P15,391.00	=	P1,282.58
c) Service Incentive Leave
1/12 of P506.00 x 5	=	210.00
		––––––––––
Total	=	P9,188.91
Multiplied by 30 yrs.	=	30
		––––––––––
Total Retirement Pay		P275,667.30
Mode of Payment
a) CEAP Contributions		P141,837.56
b) Pag-IBIG Contributions		14,350.00
c) Deficiency to be paid by the school		119,479.74
		––––––––––
Total Payment		P275,667.30 5

Meanwhile, the computation of the retirement benefits of Roberonta by SPC reads:

a) Basic Pay
1/2 of P13,594.00	=	P6,797.00
b) 1/12 of 13th month pay
1/12 of P13,594.00	=	P1,132.83
c) 1/12 of Service Incentive Leave
1/12 of P446.92 x 5	=	186.21
		––––––––––
Total	=	P8,116.04
Multiplied by 30 yrs.		30
		––––––––––
Total Retirement Pay		P243,481.20
Mode of Payment
a) CEAP Contributions		P141,778.15
b) Pag-IBIG Contributions		14,300.00
c) Deficiency to be paid by the school		87,403.05
		––––––––––
Total Payment		P243,481.20 6

While petitioners confirmed having received benefits from the Catholic Education Association of the Philippines (CEAP) Retirement Plan and Pag-IBIG Fund, they refused to accept the payment that was supposed to be paid by the SPC. Instead, petitioners filed a complaint against SPC for constructive dismissal, with claims for retirement benefits and reimbursement of illegal deductions. 7

In their position paper, petitioners insisted that they should be paid a retirement pay based on the formula that is prescribed under the 1998-1999 Faculty Manual and which they say is the formula that the school has used in the past, as follows:

1)	Current Basic Pay x 314	=	Daily Rate
2)	Daily Rate x 22.2 days x years of service	=	Retirement Pay 8

and not the new formula prescribed under the 2003 Faculty Manual, which SPC used in the computation of their retirement pay, to wit:

1) 15 days salary;

2) 1/12 of 13th month pay;

3) 1/12 of 5-day service incentive leave pay9

Petitioners claimed that the use of the 2003 Faculty Manual in the computation of their retirement pay is tantamount to a diminution of benefits, which is proscribed by law. 10 Petitioners likewise argued that the benefits under the CEAP Retirement Plan is separate and distinct from the retirement plan of the school. Hence, this should not be deducted from the retirement pay due them. 11

SPC, on the other hand, argued that the CEAP Retirement Plan was not intended as a separate retirement benefit due to the employees under the law; the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7742, 12 the Labor Advisory of then Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing, and the opinion of the Bureau of Working Conditions, allow the deduction of the employer's contribution to the Pag-IBIG Fund as part of the retirement benefits. 13

The Labor Arbiter Ruling

The Labor Arbiter (LA) concluded that as between the 1998-1999 Manual and the provisions of R.A. No. 7641, 14 the latter is more beneficial to retiring employees. The LA, thus, added from the 22.2 creditable days under the 1998-1999 Manual, the 2.5 days as 1/12 of 30 days and the 5-day service incentive leave pay for a total of 29.7 days as the creditable number of days for the computation of petitioners' retirement benefits, multiplied by the number of years of service. 15 The LA's computation is as follows:

Computation of Money Claims

1) Maria Teresita A. Osalvo

 

a) Basic salary
P506.00 x 22.2 days	=	P11,233.20
b) 13th month pay
P506.00 x 2.5	=	1,265.00
c) P506.00 x 5 days	=	2,530.00
		––––––––––
Total	=	P15,028.20
Retirement Pay
P15,028.20 x 30	=	P450,846.00
Less:
1) CEAP Contributions		141,837.56
2) Pag-IBIG Contributions School's Share to be paid		14,350.00
		––––––––––
		P294,658.44

 

2) Pedro A. Roberonta

 

a) Basic salary
P446.92 x 22.2 days	=	119,921.62
b) 13th month pay
P446.92 x 2.5	=	1,117.30
c) P446.92 x 5 days	=	2,234.60
		––––––––––
Total	=	P13,273.52
Retirement Pay
P13,273.52 x 30	=	P398,205.60
Less
1) CEAP Contributions		141,778.15
2) Pag-IBIG Contributions School's share to be paid		14,300.00
		–––––––––––––
		P242,127.4516

The LA further concluded that the deduction of SPC's contributions to the CEAP Retirement Plan and the Pag-IBIG Fund from the retirement pay is not illegal. 17 The LA, thereafter, disposed of the case in this wise:

IN VIEW THEREOF, the St. Paul College of Ilocos Sur is directed to pay the remaining balance of the complainants' claims, as follows:

1. Maria Teresita A. Osalvo — P294,658.44

2. Pedro R. Roberonta — P242,127.45

plus 10% of the award as attorney's fees. 18

Undaunted, SPC filed a Memorandum on Appeal with the NLRC.

The NLRC Ruling

In a Decision 19 promulgated on October 29, 2010, the NLRC applied the provisions of Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code in the computation of petitioners' retirement pay. The NLRC explained that the multiplier to petitioners' retirement benefit should be 22.5 as mandated by Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code, not 22.2 as used by the LA. 20 The NLRC likewise ruled that only the CEAP contributions, not the Pag-IBIG Fund contributions, may be deducted from the retirement pay. 21 The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED, in that the Respondents are hereby ordered to pay the following to Complainants, applying Art. 287 of the Labor Code, less that already received by them from the CEAP Retirement Plan which is hereby declared as valid:

 

Maria Theresa A. Osalvo	=	P472,223.25
Less	=	141,837.56	P330,385.69
		––––––––––––
Pedro R. Roberonta	=	417,089.25
Less		141,778.15	P257,311.10
		––––––––––––	––––––––––––
Total remaining balance	=		P605,696.79
			––––––––––––

 

The act of Respondents in applying their contributions to Pag-IBIG Fund as part of the retirement benefits is hereby declared as null and void.

The computation of by (sic) this Commission's Computation Unit forms part of this decision.

SO ORDERED.22

Aggrieved, SPC filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.

The CA Ruling

The CA granted in part the petition of SPC and set aside the computation of the retirement pay made by the LA and the NLRC. The CA ruled that as between the 1998-1999 Faculty Manual (22.2 days multiplier) and 2003 Faculty Manual (17.92 days multiplier), on one hand, and Article 287 (now Article 302) (22.5 days multiplier) of the Labor Code on the other, Article 287 (now Article 302) must, by force of law, take preeminence and applied in the case. 23 The CA, thus, made the following computation for petitioners' retirement pay:

For Ms. Osalvo:
Daily Rate = Monthly Basic Pay/30 days
Daily Rate = P15,391.00/30 days = P513.03/day
15 days x P513.03/day	P7,695.50
1/12 of 13th month (P15,391.00/12)	1,282.58
5 days x P513/day	2,565.15
	––––––––––
One-half month salary under Art. 287	P11,543.23
Number of years of service	x 30
	––––––––––
Total Retirement Pay Due	P346,296.90
	=========
For Mr. Roberonta:
Daily Rate = Monthly Basic Pay/30 days
Daily Rate = P13,594.00/30 days = P453.13/day
15 days x P453.13/day	P6,797.00
1/12 of 13th month (P13,594.00/12)	1,132.83
5 days x P453.13/day	2,265.65
	––––––––––––
One-half month salary under Art. 287	P10,195.48
Number of years of service	x 30
	––––––––––––
Total Retirement Pay Due	P305,864.4024
	===========

On the validity of the deductions of the CEAP Contribution and Pag-IBIG Fund contribution from the retirement pay, the CA held that the ruling of the LA on this matter, that is, such deductions were not illegal, had already attained finality due to the failure of the petitioners to appeal these issues before the NLRC. 25 The fallo of the assailed CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition at bar, is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated October 29, 2010 and the Resolution dated February 23, 2011, respectively, in NLRC LAC No. 05-001036-10 (RAB I 11-1185-08 (IS-1)) are, accordingly, MODIFIED in accordance with this Decision. Aside from the correction of the net amounts of retirement pay due them from petitioner St. Paul College of Ilocos Sur, private respondents Maria Teresa A. Osalvo and Pedro R. Roberonta are each awarded 10% of the net amounts due as and for attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED.26

Unsatisfied, petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the October 16, 2013 Decision of the CA. It was, however, denied per CA Resolution 27 dated May 19, 2014.

Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the following issues:

Issues

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT'S COMPUTATION ON THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF PETITIONERS IS IN VIOLATION OF ART. 100 OF THE LABOR CODE[,] ETC[.] AND, THEREFORE, CONTRARY TO LAW[; AND]

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE RULING THAT "THE DEDUCTION FROM THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PAG-IBIG FUND HAD ALREADY BECOME FINAL BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS DID NOT APPEAL SUCH RULING TO THE NLRC" IS LIKEWISE CONTRARY TO LAW. 28

The Court's Ruling

The petition is bereft of merit.

The CA made a correct computation of

At the outset, it bears stressing that the CA, in arriving at the gross computation of petitioners' retirement pay, did not use the formula advocated by petitioners (22.2-day multiplier based on the 1998-1999 Faculty Manual) nor the formula suggested by SPC (17.92-day multiplier based on the 2003 Faculty Manual). Instead, the CA made use of a 22.5-day multiplier pursuant to Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code (15 days + 1/12 of 13th month pay + 5 days service incentive leave pay). Clearly, the CA used a 22.5-day factor which was even higher than what petitioners were asking.

The Court agrees with the computation of the CA.

Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code as amended by R.A. No. 7641 and R.A. No. 10757, 29 reads:

ART. 302. [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, retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreements shall not be less than those provided herein.

In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year.

Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.

An underground mining employee upon reaching the age of fifty (50) years or more, but not beyond sixty (60) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age for underground mine workers, who has served at least five (5) years as underground mine worker, may retire and shall be entitled to all the retirement benefits provided for in this Article.

Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than ten (10) employees or workers are exempted from the coverage of this provision.

Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal provisions under Article 288 of this Code.

SECTION 2. Nothing in this Article shall deprive any employee of benefits to which he may be entitled under existing laws or company policies or practices. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 5.2, Rule II of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code, as amended, promulgated to implement R.A. No. 7641, further clarifies what comprises the "1/2 month salary" due to a retiring employee, to wit:

RULE II

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 5. Retirement Benefits. —

xxx xxx xxx

5.2 Components of One-half (1/2) Month Salary. — For the purpose of determining the minimum retirement pay due an employee under this Rule, the term "one-half month salary" shall include all of the following:

(a) Fifteen (15) days salary of the employee based on his latest salary rate. As used herein, the term "salary" includes all remunerations paid by an employer to his employees for services rendered during normal working days and hours, whether such payments are fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece of commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, of food, lodging or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to his employees. The term does not include cost of living allowances, profit-sharing payments and other monetary benefits which are not considered as part of or integrated into the regular salary of the employees.

(b) The cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leave;

(c) One-twelfth of the 13th month pay due the employee.

(d) All other benefits that the employer and employee may agree upon that should be included in the computation of the employee's retirement pay.

The above-quoted provisions provide that an employee's retirement pay under any collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and other agreements shall not be less than those provided under the same — that is at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year. Further, they provide that the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves. 30 Simply stated, if there is a CBA or other retirement agreement which grants benefits less than what Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code requires, the latter applies. Otherwise, the CBA or other agreement will govern.

In the instant case, SPC has a retirement plan for its faculty and non-faculty members, being a member of the CEAP, which offers the CEAP Retirement Plan. 31 In their position paper, petitioners even presented the computation for their retirement pay that was based on the formula under the 1998-1999 Faculty Manual. 32 Furthermore, the SPC made use of the 2003 Faculty Manual. These retirement plans, however, offer a pay less than what is prescribed by Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code.

To recall, based on petitioners' contention, the formula under the 1998-1999 Faculty Manual is as follows:

1)	Current Basic Pay x 314––––––––––––––––––12	= Daily Rate
2)	Daily Rate x 22.2 days x years of service	= Retirement Pay 33

Here, the multiplier is 22.2 days.

Meanwhile, the 2003 Faculty Manual made use of the multiplier 17.92 days, corresponding to 15 days salary plus 2.5 days (1/12 of the 13th month pay), plus .42 days (1/12 of the 5 days service incentive leave).

On the other hand, Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code provides for 22.5 days as multiplier. Among the 3 formulas, that prescribed by Article 287 (now Article 302) is the most beneficial to a retiring employee. Corollarily, Article 287 (now Article 302) should be applied in the instant case in computing petitioners' retirement pay. The CA was, therefore, correct in disregarding the formulas under the 1998-1999 Faculty Manual and the 2003 Faculty Manual.

It bears stressing at this point that the determining factor in choosing which retirement scheme to apply is superiority in terms of benefits provided. 34 The Court, therefore, affirms the computation of the CA as to petitioners' retirement pay, it being more beneficial to them than the computation under the 1998-1999 and 2003 Faculty Manuals.

The ruling of the LA, that the

Section 4 (d), Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which was in force at the time SPC appealed the LA's Decision, expressly provides that, on appeal, the NLRC shall limit itself only to the specific issues that were elevated for review, to wit:

Section 4. Requisites for perfection of appeal. — x x x

xxx xxx xxx

(d) Subject to the provisions of Article 218 of the Labor Code, once the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules, the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the specific issues that were elevated on appeal.

In Luna v. Allado Construction Co., Inc. (Luna) 35 this Court reiterated that "the clear import of the aforementioned procedural rule is that the NLRC shall, in cases of perfected appeals, limit itself to reviewing those issues which are raised on appeal. As a consequence thereof, any other issues which were not included in the appeal shall become final and executory." 36

Moreover, in Luna, this Court reminded that the NLRC may not rely on Article 218 (c) (now Art. 225[c]) 37 of the Labor Code as basis for its act of reviewing an entire case above and beyond the sole legal issue raised by SPC.

In the instant case, after the LA promulgated the September 30, 2009 Decision, SPC, the appellant (respondent) before the NLRC, did not question the LA's finding that the deduction of the CEAP and Pag-IBIG Fund contributions from the petitioners' retirement plan was legal. As records show, and as observed by the NLRC, the only issue raised by SPC on appeal was the LA's alleged lack of jurisdiction when he made a ruling on whether petitioners were entitled to retirement pay under R.A. No. 7641, or under the School's Faculty Manual. 38 SPC no longer raised as issue the validity of the deductions — CEAP and Pag-IBIG Fund contributions, from the retirement pay.

Records further show that despite notice of the Memorandum of Appeal, petitioners did not file any reply or comment thereto. Thus, such omission effectively limited the issue raised by SPC as the sole issue on appeal before the NLRC.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4 (d), Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure, as well, as existing jurisprudence, the legality of the deductions from the retirement benefits of the SPC's contributions to the CEAP Retirement Plan, as well as the Pag-IBIG Fund had already become final. The NLRC should not have dealt on the issue, for it has already become a settled matter.

Assuming ex argumenti that the NLRC may still rule on this issue even if it was not raised on appeal, the Court holds and so rules that the NLRC erred in declaring that the deduction of SPC's contribution to Pag-IBIG Fund from the retirement pay is illegal.

Section 1, Rule XI, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7742, grants employers to treat the coverage of the Pag-IBIG Fund as a substitute retirement benefit for its employees, thus:

RULE XI

SECTION 1. Substitute Retirement Plans. — A private employer shall have the option to treat the coverage of the Fund as a substitute retirement benefit for the employee concerned within the purview of the Revised Labor Code; Provided, such option does not in any way contravene any effective collective bargaining or other existing agreement.

xxx xxx xxx

In addition, per opinion of the Bureau of Working Conditions dated November 24, 1999 39 in response to the query of Mr. Gregorio Pascua of the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Association:

x x x the contribution made by the employer in favor of the employees (or employer share) pursuant to P.D. 1752 as amended by RA 7742 may be considered in computing retirement benefits required under Art. 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7641.

As such, whatever contribution (and its increments) made by the employer to the said Fund for the covered employee may be deducted from the total of retirement pay under RA 7641. Where, however, the total employer's contributions and its corresponding increments are not sufficient to compensate for the retirement benefits due an employee under RA 7641, i.e., taking into consideration the highest salary of the employee and his service rendered, the employer is still bound under the same law to pay the deficiency.

On the other hand, the covered employee has all the right to all his contributions to the Fund and to whatever interest he may have derived therefrom in addition to the retirement benefit as computed pursuant to RA 7641.

xxx xxx xxx 40

The foregoing supports the findings of the LA and the CA that the SPC's contribution to the Pag-IBIG Fund may be legally deducted from petitioners' retirement pay.

In sum, the application of Article 287 (now Article 302) of the Labor Code in the computation of petitioners' retirement pay is warranted in this case, being the computation most beneficial to petitioners. As to the legality of deducting the SPC's contribution in the CEAP Retirement Plan and Pag-IBIG Fund from the retirement pay, the ruling of the LA had already attained finality for failure of any party to raise the same on appeal before the NLRC. In fact, petitioners had already admitted receiving their benefits from SPC's contribution to the CEAP Retirement Plan and Pag-IBIG Fund. Nonetheless, there is legal and factual basis on the legality of these deductions from petitioners' retirement pay.

This Court, therefore, affirms and restates the CA computation as to petitioners' retirement pay less deductions:

For MARIA TERESITA A. OSALVO:
Daily Rate = Monthly Basic Pay/30 days
Daily Rate = P15,391.00/30 days = P513.03/day
15 days x P513.03/day	P7,695.50
1/12 of 13th month (P15,391.00/12)	1,282.58
5 days x P513/day	2,565.15
	––––––––––
One-half month salary under Art. 302	P11,543.23
Number of years of service	x 30
	––––––––––
Total Retirement Pay Due	P346,296.90
	––––––––––
LESS:
a. CEAP Contributions	P141,837.56
b. Pag-IBIG Contributions	14,350.00
	––––––––––
Deficiency to be paid by the school	P190,109.34
	=========
For PEDRO R. ROBERONTA:
Daily Rate = Monthly Basic Pay/30 days
Daily Rate = P13,594.00/30 days = P453.13/day
15 days x P453.13/day	P6,797.00
1/12 of 13th month (P13,594.00.00/12) n	1,132.83
5 days x P453.13/day	2,265.65
One-half month salary under Art. 302	P10,195.48
Number of years of service	x 30
	––––––––––
Total Retirement Pay Due	P305,864.40
	––––––––––
LESS:
a. CEAP Contributions	P141,778.15
b. Pag-IBIG Contributions	14,330.00
	––––––––––
Deficiency to be paid by the school	P149,756.25
	=========

* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

All told, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the CA's assailed Decision.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed October 16, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119247, is AFFIRMED in toto. aScITE

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave; Dimaampao, J., no part; Lopez, Y., J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 15, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-15.

2. Id. at 19-35; Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of this Court), concurring.

3. Id. at 51-62; signed by Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora, with, Presiding Commissioner Raul F. Aquino, and Commissioner Napoleon M. Menese, concurring.

4. Id. at 42.

5. Id.

6. Id. at 43.

7. Id.

8. Id.

9. Id. at 44.

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. Entitled "An Act Amending Presidential Decree No. 1752, as amended," approved on June 17, 1994.

13. Id. at 119-121.

14. Entitled "An act amending Article 287 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, by providing for retirement pay to qualified private sector employees in the absence of any retirement plan in the establishment," approved on December 9, 1992.

15. Id. at 46-47.

16. Id. at 47-48.

17. Id. at 48.

18. Id. at 49.

19. Id. at 51-62.

20. Id. at 59-60.

21. Id. at 59.

22. Id. at 61.

23. Id. at 26.

24. Id. at 27-28.

25. Id. at 28.

26. Id. at 34.

27. Id. at 37-38.

28. Id. at 8-9.

29. Entitled "An Act Reducing the Retirement Age of Surface Mine Workers from Sixty (60) to Fifty (50) Years, Amending for the Purpose Article 302 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the "Labor Code of the Philippines,"" approved on April 8, 2016.

30. Grace Christian High School v. Lavandera, 741 Phil. 643, 653 (2014).

31. Rollo, p. 41.

32. Id. at 43.

33. Id.

34. Santo v. University of Cebu, G.R. No. 232522, August 28, 2019, citing Elegir v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 691 Phil. 58, 73 (2012).

35. 664 Phil. 509 (2011).

36. Id. at 516-517.

37. c. To conduct investigation for the determination of a question, matter or controversy within its jurisdiction, proceed to hear and determine the disputes in the absence of any party thereto who has been summoned or served with notice to appear, conduct its proceedings or any part thereof in public or in private, adjourn its hearings to any time and place, refer technical matters or accounts to an expert and to accept his report as evidence after hearing of the parties upon due notice, direct parties to be joined in or excluded from the proceedings, correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form, give all such directions as it may deem necessary or expedient in the determination of the dispute before it, and dismiss any matter or refrain from further hearing or from determining the dispute or part thereof, where it is trivial or where further proceedings by the Commission are not necessary or desirable.

38. Rollo, p. 52.

39. Id. at 140-142.

40. Id. at 141-142.

nNote from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.