Case 253 of 327: Can an employer unilaterally retire an employee at 60 years old, against the employee's will, based on an internal agreement not signed by the employee?

        327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination

Can an employer unilaterally retire an employee at 60 years old, against the employee's will, based on an internal agreement not signed by the employee?

Case Title: Guido B. Pulong v. Super Manufacturing Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 247819, October 14, 2019

Facts of the Case:

Guido B. Pulong was employed by Super Manufacturing Inc. (SMI) starting in 1978. After a brief separation in 1998, he was rehired by SMI and continued working until 2014. On September 22, 2014, at 60 years old, he was denied entry into the company premises and informed that he had been compulsorily retired based on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between SMI and certain worker representatives, which set the retirement age at 60. Pulong objected, arguing that he wished to work until 65 and that he had not consented to the MOA, which he had not signed.

Pulong filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, 13th-month pay, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in his favor, declaring his dismissal illegal because the MOA was not executed with his consent. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), however, reversed this ruling, finding that Pulong had accepted the benefits under the MOA, thus barring him from questioning its validity.

When Pulong elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), the appellate court upheld the NLRC’s ruling. It reasoned that the MOA was valid, despite Pulong’s non-signature, as it was signed by authorized representatives of the workers, which purportedly bound all employees, including Pulong.

Pulong then appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting that his forced retirement at age 60, without his explicit consent, constituted illegal dismissal.

Issue:

The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Pulong’s compulsory retirement at 60 years old, under the terms of an agreement (MOA) which he did not personally sign, was valid and binding.

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pulong, finding that his forced retirement was illegal. It held that:

1. Consent is Necessary: For a retirement plan that imposes retirement below the compulsory age of 65 to be valid, it must be voluntarily agreed to by the employee. In this case, Pulong did not explicitly consent to the retirement plan outlined in the MOA.
2. No Authorized Representation: SMI failed to prove that the signatories of the MOA were authorized representatives of Pulong or the other employees. Thus, the agreement did not bind Pulong.
3. Estoppel Does Not Apply: While Pulong had received benefits under the MOA, this did not mean that he had consented to the retirement terms. The Court emphasized that receiving incidental benefits did not equate to accepting the retirement provisions of the MOA.

The Court concluded that Pulong was illegally dismissed and ordered SMI to pay back wages and retirement benefits. However, since Pulong had already reached 65 years old by the time of the decision, reinstatement was no longer feasible, and he was awarded separation pay.

Dispositive Portion:

The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter's decision, with modifications. It ordered Super Manufacturing Inc. to:

1. Pay back wages from the date of illegal dismissal up to Pulong’s compulsory retirement age of 65, with interest.
2. Pay separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
3. Pay retirement benefits pursuant to the Labor Code.
4. Pay attorney’s fees and legal interest until full payment is made.

Should retirement be based on company agreements that employees may not fully understand or even sign, or should retirement always remain a personal choice, particularly if the employee is still capable and willing to work?

Important Doctrines:

1. Voluntary Consent in Retirement Plans:
• Retirement must result from a bilateral act, voluntarily agreed upon by both the employer and the employee. A forced retirement, without explicit consent, constitutes illegal dismissal.
2. Estoppel and Benefits Receipt:
• Merely receiving benefits under a retirement plan does not imply consent to its terms, especially when the benefits are standard company provisions unrelated to retirement.
3. Security of Tenure:
• The constitutional right to security of tenure cannot be waived implicitly or through ambiguous agreements. Waivers of constitutional rights must be clear, categorical, and voluntary.

4.  Retirement Age Under the Law:
• Under the Labor Code (Article 302, previously Article 287), the compulsory retirement age is 65 years old, while 60 years is the minimum age for optional retirement. Retirement before 65, even under a company policy, is only valid if it has been voluntarily agreed upon by the employee.
5. Unilateral Retirement Policies:
• An employer cannot unilaterally impose a retirement policy that is contrary to the employee's express will or without securing the employee's consent, especially if the retirement age is below the statutory compulsory age of 65.
6. Representation in Labor Agreements:
• For any collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of agreement to be binding on employees, the representatives who sign on their behalf must be duly authorized. In the absence of such authority, employees are not bound by the terms of the agreement.

This case falls under Labor Law, specifically focusing on Retirement and Security of Tenure issues.

 

 

 

Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!

📢DISCLAIMER:

This content is for educational purposes only and does not guarantee the infallibility of the legal content presented. All content was created using premium AI tools and reviewed for accuracy to the best of our abilities. Always consult a qualified legal professional for legal advice.

CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)

Read the full text here

🎓 As your Philippine Law Professor, let me walk you through a significant labor law jurisprudence that law students, bar examinees, and legal practitioners must internalize. This content focuses on important doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court in a case involving forced retirement without consent—a pressing issue for workers’ security of tenure.

🧠 The purpose of this discussion is to help law students and baristas recall essential doctrines from this case and prepare for exams or recitation with clarity and confidence.

📌 Case Title: Guido B. Pulong vs. Super Manufacturing Inc., et al.

G.R. No.: 247819

Date of Promulgation: October 14, 2019

Nature: Labor Law – Illegal Dismissal via Compulsory Retirement

📝 Brief Summary:

Guido Pulong was forced to retire at age 60 based on a company-issued MOA he never signed. Despite accepting company benefits, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, emphasizing that retirement below 65 must be voluntarily consented to, otherwise it amounts to illegal dismissal.

💭 Can accepting minor company benefits legally bind you to a contract you never agreed to?

 

🔟 TOP 10 DOCTRINES FROM THE CASE

(Based on the Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 247819, October 14, 2019)

1. Consent to Retirement Must Be Voluntary and Explicit

Retirement before 65 requires the employee’s explicit, voluntary, free, and uncompelled consent. Without it, such retirement constitutes illegal dismissal. (p. 16–17)

2. Receipt of Benefits Does Not Imply Consent

Accepting company gifts like shirts or health cards doesn’t equate to accepting retirement terms. These are routine gratuities. (p. 25)

3. Unilateral MOA Imposition is Invalid

A Memorandum of Agreement signed without authorized worker representation cannot bind employees. It lacks mutuality. (p. 21–22)

4. Early Retirement Plans Must Be a Bilateral Act

Retirement schemes must result from mutual agreement—not employer imposition. Otherwise, they are void. (p. 20)

5. Security of Tenure Cannot Be Waived Implicitly

The Constitution protects a worker’s tenure. Any waiver must be clear, categorical, knowing, and intelligent. (p. 28)

6. Representation in Contracts Must Be Authorized

Only duly elected or appointed representatives can bind workers in agreements. Proof of this authority is required. (p. 22)

7. Backwages Granted Until Age 65

If reinstatement is no longer viable due to age, the employee is entitled to full backwages until the statutory retirement age of 65. (p. 29)

8. Separation Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement

When reinstatement is impractical, separation pay of one month per year of service is awarded. (p. 29)

9. Legal Interest on Monetary Awards

A 6% annual interest applies to backwages, separation pay, and retirement benefits from the date of illegal dismissal. (p. 29)

10. Estoppel Requires Knowledge and Intent

For estoppel to apply, there must be clear intent to be bound. Passive receipt of benefits doesn't meet that standard. (p. 25–26)

 

❓ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Can an employer retire a worker at 60 without consent?

No. Retirement below 65 is only valid if there is the employee’s express and voluntary consent.

2. Does accepting a rice sack or health card mean I accept the company’s retirement policy?

No. These benefits are not proof of consent to a retirement scheme.

3. What if there's no union or CBA—can a company still bind workers to an MOA?

Only if worker representatives are duly authorized. Otherwise, the MOA is not binding.

4. What happens if the employee already turned 65 before the case is decided?

The court may award backwages until age 65 and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

5. Can someone be estopped from contesting an agreement just by accepting its benefits?

Not always. Estoppel does not apply unless the employee’s acceptance was knowing and unequivocal.

 

📚 Case Reference: Guido B. Pulong v. Super Manufacturing Inc., et al., G.R. No. 247819, October 14, 2019

📌 DISCLAIMER: This video is for educational purposes only. It is not infallible and was generated using premium Artificial Intelligence. Always refer to the full text of the case and consult with qualified professionals.

📢 LIKE, COMMENT your thoughts, and SAVE this video! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE for more Bar exam content and case digests!

 

 🎓 QUIZZER INTRODUCTION: LABOR LAW – COMPULSORY RETIREMENT & ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

Welcome, future lawyers! This quizzer is based on a landmark Labor Law case:

Guido B. Pulong vs. Super Manufacturing Inc., et al., G.R. No. 247819, October 14, 2019.

🧾 Nature of the Case: Illegal dismissal due to forced retirement without consent.

📜 Parties: Guido B. Pulong (Petitioner) vs. Super Manufacturing Inc., Engr. Eduardo Dy, and Ermilo Pico (Respondents)

📅 Date of Promulgation: October 14, 2019

Brief Summary:

Guido Pulong was retired by his employer at age 60 under a company-issued Memorandum of Agreement he never signed. Despite receiving minor benefits, he claimed his retirement was against his will. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, declaring that retirement below the compulsory age is valid only if voluntarily agreed upon. The forced retirement was deemed illegal, and he was awarded backwages, separation pay, and retirement benefits.

📌 REMEMBER: The Answer Key will be provided at the end of this video. Let’s test your understanding through these HOTS-style (Higher Order Thinking Skills) questions.

 

✅ 10 EASY MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS – HOTS FORMAT

1. What must be present for an early retirement policy to be valid and enforceable on an employee?

A. Verbal notice from the employer

B. Signature of any employee

C. Voluntary and explicit consent of the employee

D. Endorsement by the company president

2. Which of the following best describes the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guido Pulong’s retirement at age 60?

A. Valid due to prior employment benefits received

B. Invalid because he was no longer physically fit

C. Invalid due to lack of voluntary consent

D. Valid as a company prerogative

3. Why did the Court rule that the MOA signed by certain workers could not bind Pulong?

A. It was not notarized

B. The signatories were not proven authorized representatives

C. Pulong was on leave at the time

D. The MOA was outdated

4. Which benefit did Pulong receive that the company claimed bound him to the MOA?

A. Stock options

B. Retirement plan

C. Gratuities like shirts and a health card

D. Company car

5. What constitutional right did the Court emphasize was violated by the forced retirement?

A. Right to due process

B. Right to property

C. Right to equal protection

D. Right to security of tenure

6. What legal principle did the Court reject in relation to Pulong’s acceptance of company benefits?

A. Waiver

B. Estoppel

C. Res judicata

D. Forum shopping

7. In resolving the case, what did the Court say about the importance of explicit employee agreement in retirement plans?

A. It is optional

B. It is needed only if the employee is unionized

C. It is required for validity

D. It is presumed through employment

8. Which of the following was NOT ordered by the Court as part of the final relief?

A. Backwages

B. Reinstatement

C. Separation pay

D. Retirement benefits

9. Why was reinstatement no longer awarded to Pulong?

A. He voluntarily resigned

B. He was employed elsewhere

C. He had already reached 65

D. The position was abolished

10. What role did the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially play in this case?

A. It upheld the Labor Arbiter’s ruling

B. It denied the employee’s complaint

C. It declared the MOA null and void

D. It ordered the employer’s closure

 

 

 

ANSWER KEY - CLICK HERE