SC: Workers cannot be forced to retire at 60 without consent

Employees cannot be compelled to retire before the mandatory retirement age of 65 without their clear and voluntary consent, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a decision dated 29 June 2026, the Court's First Division partly granted the petition of Rodolfo Ondevilla and affirmed that Colegio de San Juan de Letran in Laguna (CSJL) illegally dismissed him when it ended his employment after he turned 60.

The decision, written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, emphasized that optional retirement must be based on a voluntary agreement between the employer and employee.

Under the Labor Code, retirement age may be determined by an existing agreement or employment contract. In the absence of such an agreement, employees may optionally retire at 60, while compulsory retirement is set at 65.

The Court stressed that an employee must freely and expressly agree to early retirement because it involves relinquishing the right to security of tenure.

Ondevilla joined CSJL in 2004 as comptroller and later became assistant vice president for finance, with his appointment renewed several times.

Following a management reorganization in 2018, he was reassigned as controller. Although he objected to the reassignment, which he considered a demotion, he continued working with the same salary and benefits.

When Ondevilla turned 60 on 29 August 2019, the school treated his appointment as expired, prompting him to file an illegal dismissal complaint.

The labor arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission ruled in his favor.

The Court of Appeals also found that Ondevilla had been illegally dismissed but concluded that he had subsequently agreed to retire effective 31 July 2020, based on a letter he sent to the school.

Ondevilla challenged that finding before the Supreme Court, maintaining that he had never voluntarily agreed to retire before turning 65.

The High Court agreed, finding no evidence that CSJL had offered him a retirement arrangement that he could freely accept or reject.

It also ruled that Ondevilla's letter did not constitute an unequivocal acceptance of early retirement. Rather, the letter was written in response to the school's demand that he repay a cash advance.

The Court noted that Ondevilla had consistently opposed his early retirement, including by filing an illegal dismissal complaint.

Because his retirement was involuntary, the Court treated the termination of his employment as illegal dismissal.

The Supreme Court awarded Ondevilla full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

He was also entitled to retirement benefits covering his employment from 16 June 2004 until 29 August 2024, when he reached the compulsory retirement age of 65.

The case was referred to the labor arbitration branch for computation of the total monetary award.