SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 30 2002.

G.R. No. 150935 (Johnny C. Almeida v. Hon. Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation.)

In December 1996, after 21 years of service to respondent San Miguel Corporation, petitioner Johnny C. Almeida applied for optional retirement under respondent’s Involuntary Separation Program (ISP), a separation package designed for employees whose services were terminated under its redundancy program. However, his application was denied in view of the nature of his position (Logistics Manager, Brewing Group, Mandaue City Branch) which was not declared redundant. Consequently, on March 7, 1997, petitioner instead applied for optional retirement under respondent’s Retirement and Death Benefit Plan or Voluntary Separation Program (VSP). His application was approved, and petitioner received net retirement benefits in the amount of P1,560,597.32, executing for this purpose a “Receipt and Release” in favor of respondent in which he acknowledged receipt of the amount as full payment and settlement of his retirement benefits.

In the afternoon of the same day, however, petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Office, Branch No. VII, Cebu City, for the recovery of the alleged differential of his retirement benefits in the amount of P600,000.00 and the payment of moral and exemplary damages. He claimed that respondent arbitrarily denied his application for optional retirement under the ISP under which he would allegedly have received P600,000.00 more as retirement benefits.

The labor arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit. On appeal by petitioner, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the arbiter’s ruling and ordered respondent to pay petitioner retirement differential (P1,428,604.30), moral damages (P100,000.00), and attorney’s fees (P192,860.43). Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC granted in part by deleting the award of moral damages. Not satisfied with the ruling, respondent appealed further to the Court of Appeals which, on September 14, 2001, rendered judgment reversing the NLRC and reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the case. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition.

The petition has no merit.

Art. 227 of the Labor Code provides that “any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion." In this case, petitioner, other than his bare allegations, did not present evidence to show that the settlement on his retirement benefits, which was made before the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office, Region VII, was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion. On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that of his own initiative, he applied for and was granted optional retirement under respondent's Voluntary Separation Program for which he received retirement benefits amounting to more than 1.5 million pesos. Petitioner's reliance on the case of Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (219 SCRA 356 (1993)) is unavailing for there was misrepresentation in that case such that the employee, who had resigned from employment, was allowed to recover differential benefits notwithstanding the fact that he had earlier executed a quitclaim.

Nor is there merit in petitioner's claim that respondent corporation arbitrarily denied his application for optional retirement on the ground of redundancy for the latter had shown that petitioner's position as Logistics Manager was crucial to its operation such that the position can never be declared redundant. The prerogative to declare a position redundant belongs to management. In the absence of a showing of arbitrariness, the exercise of that judgment will not be interfered with by the courts (See Asian Alcohol Corporation v. NLRC, 305 SCRA 416 (1999)). With regard to petitioner's claim that he was discriminated against, suffice it to say that, as found by the appeals court, there were several other managerial level employees whose applications for optional retirement under the ISP were also denied by respondent corporation. Like petitioner, these employees subsequently chose to retire under respondent's voluntary separation program.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court