Short answer. The label alone should not control. The Labor Code ties the separation pay formula to the actual ground for the termination — redundancy carries a higher floor than retrenchment. If your position was genuinely redundant, calling it retrenchment does not change what the article bases the higher rate on.
What the law says
In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
Labor Code, Article 283 — Closure And Personnel Reduction. Read the full provision →
The two formulas are genuinely different
Article 283 sets separate separation pay formulas for different grounds. For termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the floor is at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher than one month's pay. For retrenchment to prevent losses and most closures, the floor drops to one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher than one month's pay. Redundancy pays more per year of service than retrenchment does.
The formula is tied to the actual ground, not a label
The article's language is phrased around the reason for termination — in case of termination due to redundancy, or in case of retrenchment to prevent losses. It ties the applicable rate to what actually caused the termination, not to whatever word appears on a notice. On the article's own structure, the ground determines the formula; the formula does not follow whatever label an employer chooses to write down.
Why this matters for your situation
If your position was genuinely redundant — meaning it was rendered unnecessary or excessive, which is what the redundancy ground under Article 283 addresses — but the termination paperwork calls it retrenchment instead, the article's rate is built around the actual ground, not the paperwork's wording. Retrenchment, on the other hand, is specifically retrenchment to prevent losses, a distinct situation from a position becoming redundant.
What to look at
Compare the reason given in your notice against what actually happened — was your position eliminated because it was no longer needed, or was the company retrenching to prevent losses? The written notice, your job description, and any statements about why the position ended are what would show whether the true ground was redundancy, regardless of what term appears in the documents.
One requirement that does not change with the label
Whichever ground actually applies, Article 283 requires the same written notice to both the worker and the labor authorities at least one month before the intended date of termination, and the same rounding rule applies to both formulas: a fraction of service of at least six months counts as one whole year. A notice that mislabels the ground does not escape this requirement, and comparing what that notice actually says against the true reason for the termination is useful evidence either way.