Research Article

Non-Adherence with Article 302 (287) of Labor Code of the Philippines: Developing Compliant and Acceptable Retirement Program

Angelita Damilig 1 *
More Detail
1 College of Arts and Foreign Languages, Lyceum of the Philippines University, Manila 1002, Philippines* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Social Sciences and Artistic Innovations, 5(2), June 2025, 0009, https://doi.org/10.35745/ijssai2025v05.02.0009
Submitted: 21 March 2025, Published: 30 June 2025
OPEN ACCESS   55 Views   24 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Employers consider employees to be the lifeblood of their companies. Despite such encouraging sentiment, not all of them treat their employees rightfully and lawfully. One noteworthy situation is about retirement policies and practices in private company, which do not adhere to but have a problematic interpretation of the law, specifically Article 302 (287) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. This highlights a necessity for research to examine the retirement program or plan and the implications of non-adherence to the article. Therefore, this study aims to elucidate Article 302 (287) of the Labor Code of the Philippines to determine the implications for private company of non-adherence to Article 302 (287). The results provide a basis for developing a compliant and acceptable retirement program. In the study, a questionnaire survey was conducted with validated open-ended questions. Interviews and document analysis were also conducted. Supreme Court decisions were analyzed as primary data, and online articles and newspaper columns were collected as secondary data. Retirement is a bilateral process. The private companies are non-adherent to Article 302 (287) and, therefore, face legal implications. Consequently, employers need to update the retirement plans of their employees to ensure compliance with current laws and encourage them to develop the plans, which fosters trust and enhances labor relations, and prevents potential legal issues.
Keywords: Illegal dismissal, Labor relations, Quit claims, Retirement, Security of tenure

CITATION (APA)

Damilig, A. (2025). Non-Adherence with Article 302 (287) of Labor Code of the Philippines: Developing Compliant and Acceptable Retirement Program. International Journal of Social Sciences and Artistic Innovations, 5(2), 0009. https://doi.org/10.35745/ijssai2025v05.02.0009

REFERENCES

  1. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2003). Social protection: Our framework policies and strategies. Available online: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/32100/social-protection.pdf (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  2. Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). (2024). Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 13. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/ph/en/tax/tax-publications/tax-alerts/2024/tax-alert-11.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  3. Congress of the Philippines. (1967). Republic Act No. 4917: An act providing that retirement benefits of employees of private firms shall not be subject to attachment, levy, execution, or any tax whatsoever. Available online: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1967/ra_4917_1967.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  4. Congress of the Philippines. (1992). Republic Act No. 7641: An act amending Article 287 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines. Available online: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7641_1992.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  5. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). (2015). Department Advisory No. 1: Renumbering the Labor Code of the Philippines, as Amended. Available online: https://www.dole9portal.com/qms/references/QP-OO2-15/DA%20No.%201%202015.pdf (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  6. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). (2024a). The Labor Code of the Philippines Presidential Decree No. 442, as Amended: Article 302 (287). Available online: https://chanrobles.com/legal4labor.htm (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  7. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). (2024b). The Labor Code of the Philippines Presidential Decree No. 442, as Amended: Article 303 (288). Available online: https://chanrobles.com/legal4labor.htm (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  8. Jimenez, J. (2022). Forcing employees to retire at 65 is illegal. The Freeman. Available online: https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2022/10/28/2219890/forcing-employees-retire-65-illegal (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  9. Labor Law PH. (2022). Book Six – Post-Employment, P.D. 442, Labor Code. Available online: https://library.laborlaw.ph/p-d-442-labor-code-book-6/ (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  10. Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Legal realism. Cornell Law School. Available online: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_realism (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  11. Lieberman, A. (2018). UN increases retirement ages for staffers to 65 years. Devex. Available online: https://www.devex.com/news/un-increases-retirement-ages-for-staffers-to-65-years-92194 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  12. OECD. (2022). Pensions at a Glance Asia/Pacific 2022. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1787/2c555ff8-en (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  13. Senate of the Philippines. (2023). Senate Bill No. 2444: Lowering the optional retirement age of government employees to 56 years old. 19th Congress. Available online: https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=19&q=SBN-2444 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  14. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1980). Soberano vs. Clave (G.R. Nos. L-43753-56 & L-50991). Available online: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/aug1980/gr_43753_56_50991_1980.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  15. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1994). Alfredo Veloso and Edito Liguaton vs DOLE, Noah’s Ark Sugar Carriers and Wilson T. Go (G.R. No. 87297). Available online: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/aug1991/gr_87297_1991.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  16. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1996). Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 95940). Available online: https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996julydecisions.php?id=413 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  17. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2006). Cainta Catholic School, et. al. vs. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union (G.R. No. 151021). Available online: https://chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2006/may2006/gr_151021_2006.php (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  18. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2007). Alpha C. Jaculbe vs. Silliman University (G.R. No. 156934). Available online: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_156934_2007.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  19. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2008). Oxales vs. United Laboratories, Inc. (G.R. No. 152991). Available online: https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51213 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  20. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2013). SME Bank, Inc. vs. De Guzman, et al. (G.R. No. 184517). Available online: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_184517_2013.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  21. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2014). Grace Christian High School vs. Lavandera (G.R. No. 177845). Available online: https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014augustdecisions.php?id=637 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  22. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2015). Zenaida Paz vs. Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc., and/or Angelo Ang (G.R. No. 199554). Available online: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/59592 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  23. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2017). Catotocan vs. Lourdes School of Quezon City (G.R. No. 213486). Available online: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr_213486_2017.html (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  24. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2018). Alfredo F. Laya, Jr. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank (G.R. No. 205813). Available online: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63856 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  25. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2019a). Carissa E. Santo vs. University of Cebu (G.R. No. 232522). Available online: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65638 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  26. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2019b). F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. vs. National Power Corporation (G.R. No. 236496). Available online: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65467 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  27. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2019c). Telus International Philippines, Inc. And Michaelsy, Petitioners, Vs. Harvey De Guzman, Respondent. (G.R. No. 202676). Available online: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65945 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  28. Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2020). Nippon Express Philippines Corporation vs. Daguiso (G.R. No. 217970). Available online: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66222 (accessed on June 20, 2024).
  29. Yi, I. (2010). Social protection, social security and social service in a development context: Transformative social policy approach. Journal of International Development Cooperation, 5(4), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.34225/jidc.2010.4.57