University of the Philippines College of Law

CJSE D2021
Case Name ROBINA FARMS CEBU V. VILLA
Topic Work After Normal Hours
Case No. | Date GR No. 175869 | April 18, 2016
Ponente Bersamin, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Elizabeth Villa had been working as a sales clerk in Robina Farms since 1981. In 2001, she tried to avail the
company’s special retirement program, however on March 2002, she received a memo from Lily Ngochua
requiring her to explain her failure to issue invoices for unhatched eggs for Jan-Feb 2002, and despite her
explanation, was suspended for 10 days (March 8-March 19). Upon reporting back, she was advised to stop
working because her application for retirement had already been approved. Subsequently, she was informed
that her application had actually been disapproved and was advised to tender her resignation with request
for financial assistance. She manifested her intention to return to work, but her gate pass was confiscated,
she was prevented from entering the premises, and was replaced by another employee.
 Villa then filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, nonpayment of OT pay, and nonpayment
of service incentive leave pay.
 Robina Farm’s version: After being found to have violated the company rule on the timely issuance of the
invoices that had resulted in delay in the payment of buyers considering that the payment had depended
upon the receipt of the invoices, and being suspended thereafter, Villa had returned to work and had followed
up her application for retirement with Lucina de Guzman, who had then informed her that the management
did not approve the benefits equivalent to 86% of her salary rate applied for, but only 1/2 month for every
year of service; and that disappointed with the outcome, she had then brought her complaint against the
company.
 LA: Villa was not illegally dismissed, since in the suggestion made by Mrs. de Guzman, there was no
compulsion as the choice was left entirely to Villa WON to pursue it (that if she wanted to pursue her
retirement despite the change in computation of benefits, she should submit a resignation letter and include
therein a request for financial assistance). LA ordered Villa’s reinstatement but denied the claim for backwages
and OT pay for lack of evidence that OT work was actually performed.
 NLRC: reversed LA, saying that Villa was illegally dismissed since her act of applying for the retirement plan,
being subject to management’s approval, was not indicative of her voluntary intention to sever her
employment relationship (only of her option to retire by qualifying under the plan), and that no evidence was
presented to counter her allegation that management prevented her from going back to work.
 CA: dismissed appeal by RFC and treated it as an unsigned pleading (procedural, see Issue #1), and affirmed
NLRC, deeming that the advice by Ngochua and de Guzman for Villa to resign and to request instead for
financial assistance was a strong and unequivocal indication of the petitioner’s desire to sever the employer-
employee relationship with Villa. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
(Procedural) NO. NLRC was correct in giving due course to Villa’s appeal.
WON Villa’s  The requirement in Section 4a, Rule VI of the Amended NLRC Rules of Procedure that the
appeal appeal be verified by the appellant herself, is a mere formal requirement, and is complied
should be with when one who has the ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
treated as complaint or petition signs the verification, or when the matters contained in the petition
an unsigned have been alleged in good faith or are true and correct.
pleading for
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CJSE D2021
attaching to  Being a mere formal requirement, the courts may even simply order the correction of
her appeal improperly verified pleadings, or act on the same upon waiving the strict compliance with
the same the rules of procedure.
verification  In contrast with petitioner’s deficiencies: 1) It belatedly submitted proof of Zanoria’s
as that in authority to verify the pleading (appeal) for the petitioner. 2) It did not submit the
her position certification of non-forum shopping at the time of the filing of the appeal.
paper o The filing of the certification with the initiatory pleading was mandatory, and the
failure to do so could not be cured by a later submission.
o The non-submission of the certification, being a ground for dismissal, was fatal to
the petition.
WON Villa YES.
was illegally  In this case, Villa was clearly not admitted immediately after her 10-day suspension.
dismissed Management’s acts of advising her not to report because her application for retirement was
approved (when it was not), to give a resignation letter instead, and preventing her from
entering the premises indicated that RFC wanted to severe the EER between it and Villa.
 Villa’s application for early retirement did not manifest her intention to sever the EER.
Although she applied for early retirement, she did so upon the belief that she would receive
a higher benefit based on the petitioner’s offer. As such, her consent to be retired could not
be fairly deemed to have been knowingly and freely given.
Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of both the employer and the employee based on their
voluntary agreement that upon reaching a certain age, the employee agrees to sever his
employment. The employee’s intent is decisive. In determining such intent, the relevant parameters
to consider are the fairness of the process governing the retirement decision, the payment of
stipulated benefits, and the absence of badges of intimidation or coercion.
 In case of early retirement programs, the offer of benefits must be certain while the acceptance
to be retired should be absolute. The acceptance by the employees must be explicit, voluntary, free
and uncompelled. Employees are free to accept the employer’s offer to lower the retirement age if
they feel they can get a better deal with the retirement plan presented by the employer.
(Related to PARTLY. (OT pay – NO; service incentive leave pay – YES)
the topic) OT PAY: Entitlement to OT pay must first be established by proof that the overtime work was actually
WON it was performed before the employee may properly claim the benefit. The burden of proving entitlement
correct for to OT pay rests on the employee because the benefit is not incurred in the normal course of business.
the CA to Failure to prove such actual performance transgresses the principles of fair play and equity.
affirm the  NLRC’s reliance on the daily time records (DTRs) showing that Villa had stayed in the
award of OT company’s premises beyond eight hours was misplaced. The DTRs did not substantially
pay and prove the actual performance of overtime work. RFC correctly points out that any employee
service could render overtime work only when there was a prior authorization by the
incentive management. Without the prior authorization, therefore, Villa could not validly claim having
leave pay performed work beyond the normal hours of work.
SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY: Although the grant of vacation or sick leave with pay of at least five
days could be credited as compliance with the duty to pay service incentive leave, the employer is
still obliged to prove that it fully paid the accrued service incentive leave pay to the employee.
 In this case, RFC submitted the affidavits of Zanoria explaining the payment of service
incentive leave after the LA had rendered her decision. Evidence should be presented in the
proceedings before the LA, not after the rendition of the adverse decision by the LA or
during appeal. Such a practice of belated presentation cannot be tolerated because it
defeats the speedy administration of justice in matters concerning the poor workers.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CJSE D2021

RULING
CA decision affirmed, award of OT pay deleted.