Retirement a right, says SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered International School Manila (ISM) to pay retirement benefits to a former athletic coach, ruling that such benefits are a matter of right and human dignity rather than an act of employer generosity.

In a decision dated 29 July 2025, but released recently, the court’s First Division denied ISM’s petition to overturn a Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Ireland Cabrido. The high court directed a labor arbiter to recompute the total amount owed to the former coach based on his 25 years of service.

The dispute began during the Covid-19 pandemic when Cabrido accepted ISM’s written offer for an early retirement package. He later contested the school’s computation, arguing that as a regular employee of over two decades, his pay should reflect his full tenure.

ISM argued that Cabrido was a fixed-term employee rather than a full-time staff member and therefore was only entitled to financial assistance, which it claimed he had already received.

The school further contended that Cabrido did not qualify for retirement pay under the Labor Code because he was not yet 60 years old and had already signed a quitclaim.

Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, in the decision, rejected those arguments, stating that all private-sector employees are entitled to retirement benefits regardless of their contract status.

“The fact that Cabrido’s contract was for a fixed term is immaterial,” the court ruled, noting that the school itself initiated the retirement offer in writing.

The court also dismissed ISM’s characterization of Cabrido’s claim as an act of “greed.” The ruling noted that school officials used the terms “retirement option” and “retirement package” in their correspondence, leading Cabrido to believe he was qualified under the law.

The justices further ruled that the quitclaim signed by Cabrido did not bar him from seeking full benefits, noting that employers and employees generally do not stand on “equal footing” in such agreements.

“Retirement is a right and not a privilege; neither is it considered a ‘dole out,’” the court said.