View full case

INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES v. NLRC

FACTS:

The case involves Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. (Intel Phil.) and Jeremias Cabiles. Cabiles worked for Intel Phil. for several years and was later assigned to Intel Arizona and Intel Chengdu. He then accepted a job offer from Intel Semiconductor Limited Hong Kong (Intel HK). Despite not completing the required 10-year service period, Cabiles inquired about his retirement benefits from Intel Phil. and was informed that he was not eligible to receive them. However, Cabiles accepted the job offer and later resigned from Intel HK. Two years later, he filed a complaint with the NLRC claiming retirement benefits. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Cabiles, and the NLRC affirmed the decision but held Intel Phil. solely liable for the retirement benefits.

Jeremias Cabiles was employed by Intel Phil. for nine and a half years before transferring to Intel HK. He argued that the transfer did not sever his ties with Intel Phil. and was a continuation of his service with the company. Cabiles filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking retirement benefits from Intel Phil., and the NLRC ruled in his favor. The NLRC disregarded a waiver signed by Cabiles, stating that the retirement pay had not yet accrued when it was signed. Intel Phil.'s appeal and motion for reconsideration were denied. During the pendency of the case, the NLRC issued a writ of execution against Intel Phil., which the company paid. Intel Phil. filed a supplement to the petition for certiorari with the CA, requesting the restitution of the amounts paid. The CA denied the supplement and the motion for reconsideration. Intel Phil. filed a petition before the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the CA's dismissal of their petition and the NLRC's ruling on Cabiles' entitlement to retirement benefits. Cabiles argued that he was entitled to retirement pay as he had rendered more than ten years of service with Intel Phil., and that the quitclaim he signed should be considered null and void.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the resignation of Cabiles from Intel Philippines.

  2. Whether Cabiles' employment in Hong Kong can be considered as an assignment or an extension of his employment with Intel Philippines.

  3. Whether the transfer of the employee to Intel HK was a permanent transfer or an assignment.

  4. Whether the waiver executed by the employee was valid.

  5. Whether the waiver covers the claims for retirement pay.

  6. Whether or not the waiver signed by the respondent effectively releases the company from all liabilities arising from his employment.

  7. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to retirement benefits.

  8. Whether or not the respondent should return the amounts received from the company.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to prove Cabiles' resignation from Intel Philippines. His acts and intentions, as evidenced by his correspondence with Intel Philippines, demonstrate his firm resolve to voluntarily disassociate himself from the company and take on new responsibilities with Intel HK. Despite the non-favorable reply regarding his retirement concerns, Cabiles accepted the offer of Intel HK, which meant letting go of his retirement benefits.

  2. The Court determines that Cabiles' employment in Hong Kong cannot be considered as an assignment or an extension of his employment with Intel Philippines. The evidence presented does not support the theory of secondment. The benchmarks used to measure the existence or termination of an employer-employee relationship, such as selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over the employee's conduct, ceased upon Cabiles' transfer to Intel HK.

  3. The transfer of the employee to Intel HK was a permanent transfer and not an assignment. Intel Phil. no longer had control over the employee and he became subject to Hong Kong labor laws as the new employer. The theory of secondment must fail.

  4. The waiver executed by the employee was valid. There is no clear evidence showing that the employee was coerced or did not understand the consequences of signing the waiver. The court cannot disregard the waiver as there is no evidence to warrant its disregard.

  5. The waiver covers the claims for retirement pay. The terms of the waiver clearly state that it is a full and complete settlement of all benefits due to the employee upon his separation from the company.

  6. The Supreme Court held that the waiver signed by the respondent effectively releases the company from all liabilities arising from his employment, including future claims. The non-accrual of benefits cannot be used as a basis to award retirement benefits to the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent is ineligible to receive retirement pay due to his early resignation and failure to satisfy the ten-year minimum requirement. Therefore, the respondent must return all amounts received from the company.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Resignation is the formal relinquishment of an office, demonstrated through overt acts and an intent to renounce.

  • The continuity, existence, or termination of an employer-employee relationship in a secondment contract or any employment contract is determined by the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and the employer's power to control the employee's conduct.

  • A permanent transfer requires the abandonment of the employee's current position in order to assume a position with a different employer, rank, compensation, and benefits.

  • Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into, represents a reasonable settlement, and the person making the waiver did so voluntarily and with full understanding, the waiver is valid and binding.

  • The terms of a waiver should be clear and explicit. If the waiver states that it is a full and complete settlement of all benefits, it includes all accrued benefits at the time of signing.

  • A waiver duly signed by an employee effectively releases the company from all liabilities arising from employment, including future claims.

  • Non-accrual of benefits cannot be used as a basis to award retirement benefits to an employee.

  • Ineligibility to receive retirement pay can result from early resignation and failure to satisfy the minimum requirement.