Scribd
Upload
668 views2 pages

Santos v. Servier Philippines Inc.

1) Petitioner was the Human Resource Manager of Servier Philippines and attended a meeting in Paris, where she became ill and was hospitalized. Servier terminated her employment after concluding she was unfit for work based on a physician's evaluation. 2) Servier offered petitioner a retirement package of P1,063,841.76 but only released P701,454.89, withholding the balance allegedly for taxes. Petitioner claimed the full retirement benefits were owed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner's claim regarding the illegal deduction from her retirement benefits was within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunal to decide, as it was intertwined with her overall claim for unpaid retirement benefits arising from her employment.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
668 views2 pages

Santos v. Servier Philippines Inc.

1) Petitioner was the Human Resource Manager of Servier Philippines and attended a meeting in Paris, where she became ill and was hospitalized. Servier terminated her employment after concluding she was unfit for work based on a physician's evaluation. 2) Servier offered petitioner a retirement package of P1,063,841.76 but only released P701,454.89, withholding the balance allegedly for taxes. Petitioner claimed the full retirement benefits were owed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner's claim regarding the illegal deduction from her retirement benefits was within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunal to decide, as it was intertwined with her overall claim for unpaid retirement benefits arising from her employment.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SANTOS V. SERVIER PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. NO. 166377


NOVEMBER 28, 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner was the Human Resource Manager of respondent Servier Philippines, Inc.
Petitioner attended a meeting of all human resource managers of respondent, held in Paris, France.
Since the last day of the meeting coincided with the graduation of petitioner’s only child, she
arranged for a European vacation with her family right after the meeting. She, thus, filed a vacation
leave. During their stay, petitioner was hospitalized due to "alimentary allergy". All the expenses
for her hospitalization and medication was paid by respondent.
Due to the number of days which she was confined, respondent informed the petitioner that
the former had requested the latter’s physician to conduct a thorough physical and psychological
evaluation of her condition, to determine her fitness to resume her work at the company.
Petitioner’s physician concluded that the former had not fully recovered mentally and physically.
Hence, respondent was constrained to terminate petitioner’s services.
In lieu of petitioner’s termination from employment, respondent offered a retirement
package. Of the promised retirement benefits amounting to P1,063,841.76, only P701,454.89 was
released to petitioner’s husband, the balance thereof was withheld allegedly for taxation purposes.
Respondent also failed to give the other benefits.
Petitioner, represented by her husband, instituted the instant case against the respondent,
such as unpaid balance of retirement package. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. It held
that petitioner could no longer collect separation pay over and above her retirement benefits. On
appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the tribunal set aside the Labor
Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision. Respondent argues that the
legality of the deduction from petitioner’s total benefits cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court
since the issue was not raised during the early stage of the proceedings.

ISSUE:
WON petitioner’s claim for illegal deduction falls within the tribunal’s jurisdiction

RULING:
YES. Contrary to the Labor Arbiter and NLRC’s conclusions, petitioner’s claim for illegal
deduction falls within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. It is noteworthy that petitioner demanded the
completion of her retirement benefits, including the amount withheld by respondent for taxation
purposes. The issue of deduction for tax purposes is intertwined with the main issue of whether or
not petitioner’s benefits have been fully given her. It is, therefore, a money claim arising from the
employer-employee relationship, which clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC.
In Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) v. Amarilla, IBC withheld the salary
differentials due its retired employees to offset the tax due on their retirement benefits. The retirees
thus lodged a complaint with the NLRC questioning said withholding. They averred that their
retirement benefits were exempt from income tax; and IBC had no authority to withhold their
salary differentials. The Labor Arbiter took cognizance of the case, and this Court made a
definitive ruling that retirement benefits are exempt from income tax, provided that certain
requirements are met. Nothing, therefore, prevents us from deciding this main issue of whether the
retirement benefits are taxable.
Petitioner was qualified for disability retirement. At the time of such retirement, petitioner was
only 41 years of age; and had been in the service for more or less eight (8) years. Therefore,
respondent cannot be faulted for deducting from petitioner’s total retirement benefits the amount
of P362,386.87, for taxation purposes.

You might also like