University

of the Philippines College of Law

Topic
Case No. GR No. 146202

Case Name Rufine Patis and Lucas v. Alusitain

Ponente Carpio-Morales, J.
Digester Cruz

Quick Facts
Cause of Action Complaint for Non-Payment of Retirement
(Complaint/ Information) Benefits
Evidence in Question Alusitain’s retraction of a 1991 affidavit
How was it raised to the SC? On appeal
Trial Court Decision allowed
Supreme Court Decisions denied

SUMMARY
- Alusitain worked for Rufina for about 43 years before retiring in 1991. He tendered his letter of
resignation and Affidavit of Separation from Employment in 1991.
- RA 7641 (1993) took effect which provided for retirement benefits for employees aged 60-65
amounting to ½ month salary for every year of service
- Alusitain, in 1995, demanded payment of his retirement benefits saying that he continued to
work for petitioner notwithstanding the 1991 document. After refusal, he sought relief from the
courts
- The SC ruled against Alusitain, saying that he was unable to prove that he was an employee of
petitioner when the RA took effect. His sworn statement of retracting his 1991 is suspect and is
not the best evidence available to overcome the assumption of regularity of the facts stated
therein

RELEVANT FACTS
- Alusitain worked as a laborer for Rufina for about 43 years after finally retiring in 1991. He
submitted his letter of resignation and Affidavit of Separation from Employment shortly
thereafter
- In 1993, RA 7641 took effect that granted all employees aged 60-65 are entitled to retirement
benefits upon retirement in the amount of ½ month pay for every year of service
- In 1995, Alusitain, claiming that he retired from the company in 1995, having reached the age of
65 and due to poor health, demanded from petitioner for the payment of his retirement benefits
amounting to P86,710. He argues that despite the 1991 documents, he continued to work for
petitioner until January of 1995
- Because of petitioner’s adamant refusal and averment that he retired in 1991, he filed a case to
the NLRC
- The lower courts ruled against petitioner. Giving credence to Alusitain’s sworn statement
retracting the 1991 documents, and to respondent’s daughter’s testimony that she

 University of the Philippines College of Law

delivered food to her father until January 1995. They ordered Rufina to pay Alusitain’s
retirement benefits
- The petitioners took to the SC, saying that the lower courts erred in retroactively applying
the RA despite the fact that Alusitain has failed to prove he was an employee of Rufina at
the time the RA took effect.

ISSUE/S
1. W/N Alusitain was able to prove that he was an employee of Rufina at the time the RA took
effect and is thus entitled to retirement benefits granted thereby – No

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
1. W/N Alusitain was - Respondent's letter of resignation and May 22, 1991 Affidavit of
able to prove that Separation which he admittedly voluntarily executed constitute
he was an employee admissions against his own interest
of Rufina at the - Being an admission against interest, the documents are the best
time the RA took evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in
effect and is thus dispute
entitled to - Admissions against interest may be refuted by the declarant. It
retirement benefits bears stressing, however, that Alusitain's Affidavit of Separation
granted thereby – filed with the SSS is prima facie evidence of the facts expressed
No therein. To contradict the facts stated therein, there must be
evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant
- Alusitain's daughter did not state that her father worked for
petitioner Rufina Patis Factory until his alleged retirement in
1995. All she said was that the last time she brought him food at
the factory was in January 1995
- It is evident that Alusitain's subsequent sworn statement is in the
nature of a retraction of his May 22, 1991 Affidavit of
Separation, but retraction does not necessarily negate the
affidavit. For retractions are generally unreliable and looked
upon with considerable disfavor
- Alusitain's retraction is highly suspect. Other than his bare and
self-serving allegations and the sworn statement of his daughter,
he has not shown any scintilla of evidence that he was employed
with petitioner Rufina Patis Factory at the time R.A. 7641 took
effect.
- He did not produce any documentary evidence such as pay slips,
income tax return, his identification card, or any other
independent evidence to substantiate his claim.

 University of the Philippines College of Law

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals June 23, 2000 Decision and December 6, 2000
Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 54722 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES