Retirement pay of part-time workers

Dear Atty. Maan,

My Dad has been a part-time teacher at a university in our province since the 1980s. At the age of 65, he claimed retirement benefits after decades of employment and service in accordance with Republic Act 7641, otherwise known as the New Retirement Pay Law. However, the university denied my dad’s claim for retirement benefits. Since my dad has not been granted retirement benefits under any agreement with or voluntary act, can my dad claim retirement benefits by mandate of any law?

Levi

***

Dear Levi,

Republic Act 7641, the Retirement Pay Law, shall apply to all private-sector employees, regardless of their position, designation, or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid. This includes part-time employees, employees of service and other job contractors, domestic helpers, and persons in the personal service of another.

The law does not cover employees of retail, service, and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than 10 employees or workers and employees of the National Government and its political subdivisions, including Government-owned and/or controlled corporations, if they are covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations.

Moreover, in the case of De Lasalle Araneta University vs Bernardo, G.R. 190809, the Supreme Court ruled:

“For the availment of the retirement benefits under Article 302 [287] of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 7641, the following requisites must concur: (1) the employee has reached the age of 60 years for optional retirement or 65 years for compulsory retirement; (2) the employee has served at least five years in the establishment; and (3) there is no retirement plan or other applicable agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment. It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

“The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expression unius est exclusio alterius. Bernardo — being 75 years old at the time of his retirement, having served DLS-AU for a total of 27 years, and not being covered by the grant of retirement benefits in the CBA — is unquestionably qualified to avail himself of retirement benefits under said statutory provision; equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year.

“The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. One variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressum facit cessare taciturn. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.”

Hope this helps.

Atty. Mary Antonnette M. Baudi