A

The action of the Manpower Services, Inc. withholding the salary of is valid.

As a general rule, employers are prohibited from withholding wages from employees. The Labor Code
provides:

Art. 116. Withholding of wages and kickbacks prohibited.It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or
indirectly, to withhold any amount from the wages of a worker or induce him to give up any part of his
wages by force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever without the worker’s
consent.

The Labor Code also prohibits the elimination or diminution of benefits. Thus:

Art. 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. Nothing in this Book shall be
construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed
at the time of promulgation of this Code.

Any withholding of an employee’s wages by an employer may only be allowed in the form of wage
deductions under the circumstances provided in Article 113 of the Labor Code, as set forth below:

Art. 113. Wage deduction. No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any
deduction from the wages of his employees, except:

1. In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to
recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance;

2. For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized
by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and

3. In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment

For this reason, we cannot hold that entitled to his wages pending investigation of an alleged
commission of crime.
 B

It must be emphasized at the outset that our Labor Code provides that the compulsory age for
retirement is pegged at 65 years of age, to wit:

“Article 287. Retirement. Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in
the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.

xxx

In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the
establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five
(65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5)
years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least
one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being
considered as one whole year. x x x x.” [Emphasis and underscoring supplied.]

It is evident from the foregoing provision of law that in the absence of a retirement plan or agreement
providing for retirement benefits of employees in an establishment, the compulsory retirement age is 65
years old, and that an employee only has the option of retiring at the age of 60 years which cannot be
compelled by the employer.

In the case at bar, the employee is about to reach the mandatory retirement age as provided for by the
Labor Code of the Philippines. Likewise, he signed an agreement/contract that, upon reaching the age of
65, he will receive a retirement package from the company. The notice requirement was also fulfilled as
he received a letter stating that he is eligible for retirement and that his retirement package is ready for
release upon retirement.

In terms of dismissal and retirement of employees, the Anti Age Discrimination Act provides that it is
unlawful for employers to forcibly lay off an employee or impose early retirement because of the
employee's old age. Hence, inapplicable in the instant case.

To reiterate, the Labor Code provides that any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement
age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable contract. In the absence of
such, an employee may retire at the optional retirement age of 60 (50 years for underground mine
workers) but not beyond the compulsory retirement age of 65 years. These rules still hold true, since
R.A. No. 10911 neither amends nor repeals the Labor Code other than requiring that there should not be
any forcible early retirement motivated by age discrimination.

Following the said laws, it is thus clear that the forced retirement was valid and did conform to the
requirements set by law.