G.R. No. 201043

Republic vs Daisy Yahon

G.R. No. 201043

Facts:

Sgt Yahon was married to respondent. A TPO has been issued against Sgt Yahon to protect the respondent from further abuses. In the TPO, Sgt Yahon was ordered to provide reasonable financial spousal support to the respondent. In his failure to appear before the court with a counsel and with an answer to the charges against him, the court has granted PPO for the respondent against Sgt Yahon. It was also reiterated that Sgt Yahon should provide for the financial spousal support to his wife from his retirement benefits. However, the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center contended that half of the retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon cannot be given to the respondent as it is from a military institution. The petitioner contended that money due to government employees is not liable to the creditors of the said employees in the process of garnishment.

Issue:

Whether or not the retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon be subject to the ruling of the court to provide for the financial spousal support of respondent.

Held:

Retirement benefits of Sgt Yahon are subject to the financial spousal support of respondent. As a rule in statutory construction, when the law does not distinguish, the court should not distinguish. As section 8 (g) of RA No. 9262 used the general term 'employer', it includes in its coverage the military institution, which is the employer of Sgt Yahon.

G.R. No. 190809

De La Salle Araneta University vs Juanito Bernardo

G.R. No. 190809

Facts:

Bernardo has been a part-time employee of the DLS-AU. At the age of 65, the age of retirement, Bernardo was granted another term of employment. Bernardo's contract with the university only ceased when he reached the age of 75, the compulsory retirement age. He asserts his right to claim his retirement benefits.

Issue:

Whether or not Bernardo is entitled to the retirement benefits.

Held:

Bernardo is entitled to the retirement benefits. According to Article 302 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA No 7641, any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age and that he shall be entitled to receive retirement benefits under the existing laws. Further, according to section 1 of Book VI Rule 2 of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the same rule shall apply to all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted under Section 2 hereof. The exemptions do not cover the part-time employees.

Applying the principle of expressio unio est expulsio alterius which is that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others, Bernardo's claim for retirement benefits cannot be denied on the ground that he was a part-time employee.