FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236809. June 6, 2018.]
SPOUSES PETER REY HIPOLITO AND ZENAIDA T. REY HIPOLITO, petitioners, vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFIT PLAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236809 — Spouses Peter Rey Hipolito and Zenaida T. Rey Hipolito, petitioners, vs. San Miguel Corporation Retirement and Death Benefit Plan, respondent.
After due consideration, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for: (a) having raised factual questions; and (b) failure of petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner Peter Rey Hipolito (Peter) argues that he is entitled to optional retirement benefits from respondent, considering his 15 years of service with San Miguel Corporation (SMC), and he insists that the proceeds thereof can, by way of legal compensation, be applied to his unpaid housing loan in accordance with the provisions of the real estate mortgage that he executed in respondent's favor. 1 HEITAD
The issue as to Peter's eligibility to avail of optional retirement under the San Miguel Corporation Retirement Plan is factual in nature. As such, it cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition, where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been committed by the lower courts. 2 Thus, the Petition should be denied, in the absence of any exceptional circumstance3 as to merit the Court's review of factual questions that have already been settled by the lower courts.
Besides, the issue is already barred by estoppel, 4 having been raised for the first time on appeal before the CA. 5 The settled rule, after all, is that "no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below." 6 To allow new matters to be raised for the first time at such a late stage in the proceedings would offend the basic considerations of fairness and due process. 7
In any case, the records plainly show that Peter could not have availed of his optional retirement, notwithstanding his alleged 15 years of service with SMC, because he was validly dismissed from employment due to fraud and breach of trust for misappropriating SMC's funds. 8
Section 5, Article V of the San Miguel Corporation Retirement Plan is clear on this point:
Section 5. Termination for Cause. — Any Member who is terminated from the Company for any cause attributable to his own fault, negligence, misconduct or fraud, shall not be entitled to any benefit under this Plan. 9
Given these circumstances, the CA correctly denied petitioners' appeal for lack of merit. aDSIHc
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 11, 2017 Decision and the January 12, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100511.
The Notice of Change of Address of Atty. Raymundo G. Hipolito III, counsel for petitioners, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Jardeleza, J., no part; Peralta, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated April 16, 2018; Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 12.
2. See Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. People, 721 Phil. 760, (2013) citing Remalante vs. Tibe, 241 Phil. 930 (1988).
3. See New City Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 499 Phil. 207, 212-213 (2005).
4. Dimaandal v. Ilagan, G.R. No. 202280, December 7, 2016, 813 SCRA 255, 259.
5.Rollo, p. 29.
6. See supra at 4. Italics supplied.
7.Id.
8.Rollo, p. 28.
9.Id. at 51. Emphasis and underscoring in the original.