Sunday, December 04, 2011

Metropolitan Bank & trust Company, Inc. vs. The Board of Trustees of Riverside Mills Corp. Provident and Retirement Fund, et al., G.R. No. 176959, September 8, 2010.

Attorney’s fees. Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code allows the award of attorney’s fees in cases where the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. Attorney’s fees may be awarded by a court to one who was compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his or her interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought. 

Retirement funds; trust. RMC was a company that set up a fund for its employees called RMCPRF. Petitioner contends that RMC’s closure in 1984 rendered the RMCPRF Board of Trustees functus officio and devoid of authority to act on behalf of RMCPRF. It thus belittles the RMCPRF Board Resolution dated June 2, 1998, authorizing the release of the Fund to several of its supposed beneficiaries. Without known claimants of the fund for 11 years since RMC closed shop, it claims that fund had “technically reverted” to, and formed part of RMC’s assets. Hence, it could be applied to satisfy RMC’s debts to Philbank. The court disagreed with the petitioner in this case. 

A trust is a “fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of another.” A trust is either express or implied. Express trusts are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust. 

Here, an express trust was created to provide retirement benefits to the regular employees of RMC. RMC retained legal title to the Fund but held the same in trust for the employees-beneficiaries. Employees’ trusts or benefit plans are intended to provide economic assistance to employees upon the occurrence of certain contingencies, particularly, old age retirement, death, sickness, or disability. They give security against certain hazards to which members of the Plan may be exposed. They are independent and additional sources of protection for the working group and established for their exclusive benefit and for no other purpose. Here, while the plan provides for a reversion of the fund to RMC, this cannot be done until all the liabilities of the plan have been paid. And when RMC ceased operations in 1984, the fund became liable for the payment not only of the benefits of qualified retirees at the time of RMC’s closure but also of those who were separated from work as a consequence of the closure. Metropolitan Bank & trust Company, Inc. vs. The Board of Trustees of Riverside Mills Corp. Provident and Retirement Fund, et al., G.R. No. 176959, September 8, 2010.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

2 comments: on "Metropolitan Bank & trust Company, Inc. vs. The Board of Trustees of Riverside Mills Corp. Provident and Retirement Fund, et al., G.R. No. 176959, September 8, 2010."

Anonymous said...

kailan po kaya ibbgay s mga employee ng rmc ang benifits and retirement fees.tnx

Anonymous said...

Antagal na nito.May desisyon na pla korte suprema.Pinipigilan lng ng matatalinong abogado ang pagbibigay ng nararapat na tanggapin ng mga empleyado.Mga nangamatay na karamihan sa kanila at maswerteng buhay pa ang tatay ko na si Generoso Cordero. Sana makuha nila ang pinaglaban nila ng matagal na.Maliwanag na may conspiracy sa pagitan ng RMC, Metrobank at pati abogado na nagrepresent sa RMC Employee Union. Sa makakabasa nito paki add ako s facebook.Ipaglaban natin to. Pangulo na si Duterte at transparency sa lahat ng sangay ng gobyerno ang kailangan.Eric Mariano Cordero. Yan ang facebook account ko.

Post a Comment