G.R. No. 87051 February 7, 1991

ESCO HALE SHOE COMPANY, INC. and ELMER H. COBB, petitioners,

Vs.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CASIMIRA B. PEDROSA, HON, NIEVES V. DE CASTRO, DEPUTY SHERIFF RENE A. MASILUNGAN and ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.

Padilla, Reyes, Belarmino & De la Torre and Paul P. Lentejas for petitioners. Ballon & Triste Law Offices and Ocampo, Quiroz, Mina & Associates for private respondents.

PARAS, J .:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission which affirmed the respondent Labor Arbiter's decision ordering the petitioner Esco Hale Shoe Company, Inc. to pay private respondent Casimira B. Pedrosa the total amount of P23,534.83 representing retirement benefits, 13th month pay for 1986 and unpaid vacation/sick leave benefits.

It appears that private respondent had been employed by the petitioner for forty nine (49) years commencing in 1937 as a shoe box maker until 1986 as a heel pad attacher.

In 1982, having reached the age of sixty five (65), private respondent applied for retirement with the Social Security Commission and she received retirement benefits therefrom. Although she had already retired, private respondent continued working for the petitioner until November 1, 1986 when she was excluded by the petitioner from the regular work schedule. Private respondent, thereafter, demanded that she be retired from employment and/or be paid separation pay, but the petitioner refused despite repeated demands.

Thus, on February 12, 1987, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for violation of PD 851 and for payment of retirement benefits and/or separation pay and other claims.

As defense, the petitioner argued that the only reason for the filing of the complaint is private respondent's baseless demand to be retired anew; that the petitioner has no separate retirement nor private benefit plan and all its employees, including the private respondent, are reported to the SSS for coverage; that private respondent had effectively retired from the petitioner in 1982 when she received retirement benefits from the SSS; and that all the other claims of private respondent, except vacation leave pay for the years 1985 and 1986 in the amount of P1,008.00, had been paid by the petitioner to her.

SO ORDERED Error! Bookmark not defined.

1. State the main problem of the both sides.

2. State the different areas of consideration of the both sides following the guide below:

A.The Strength of the both sides

B. The Weakness of the both sides

C. The Opportunities of the both sides

D. The Threats of the both sides

3. Give the proposed solutions/alternative course of action or ACA( Minimum of three) to the both sides, also the advantages and disadvantages of each ACA.

4. State your recommendations based on your ACA.

6. Make a research on the decision given by the court.

7. Make a recommendation on the decision based on your acquired knowledge in MATERNITY LEAVE (RA 8282, as amended by RA 11210n ).

8. Make a research on the decision given by the court.

9. Make a recommendation on the decision based on your acquired knowledge in RETIREMENT PAY Article 302