ROBINA FARMS CEBU v.

ELIZABETH VILLA
GR No. 175869, Apr 18, 2016

FACTS: Respondent Elizabeth Villa brought against the petitioner her complaint for
illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, and nonpayment of
service incentive leave pay in the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of the NLRC in
Cebu City

Villa averred that she availed herself of the company's special retirement program.
Pending the application, she had received a memorandum regarding an incident at
work. Because of this, she was suspended for 10 days. Upon reporting back to work,
she was advised to cease working because her application for the retirement program
had already been approved, which later turned out to be in reality disapproved. She
was advised to tender her resignation with a request for financial assistance and was
prevented from entering the company premises.

Robina Farms Inc. alleged the same facts. It added that the administrative hearing
found Villa to have violated a company rule. Villa was informed 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.

The Labor Arbiter found that Villa had not been dismissed from employment. Upon
appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA's decision., because all in all, petitioner neither
disputed the allegations nor adduced evidence to controvert the same. When Petition
for Certiorari was filed by petitioner, before the CA, the CA dismissed the decision,
ultimately ruling 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.

ISSUES:
a, Whether Villa was illegally dismissed
b. Whether the burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay rests on the employer
c. Whether the grant of overtime pay and service incentive leave

RULING:

a. YES. It is undeniable that private respondent was suspended for ten (10) days
beginning March 8, 2002 to March 19, 2002. Ordinarily, after an employee [has]
served her suspension, she should be admitted back to work and to continue to receive
compensation for her services. In the case at bar, it is clear that private respondent was
not admitted immediately after her suspension. The letter of petitioner Lily Ngochua
dated April 11, 2002 to private respondent which reads:

"As explained by Lucy de Guzman xxx your request for special retirement with
financial assistance of 86% year of service has not been approved. Because this
offer was for employees working in operations department and not in Adm. &
Sales.
 "However, as per Manila Office, you can be given financial assistance of 1/2 per
year of service if you tender letter of resignation with request for financial
assistance."

shows that petitioner Lily Ngochua has also advised private respondent to the same.
These acts are strong indication that petitioners wanted to severe [sic] the employer-
employee relationship between them and that of private respondent. This is buttressed
by the fact that when private respondent signified her intention to return back to work
after learning of the disapproval of her application, she was prevented to enter the
petitioner's premises by confiscating her ID and informing her that a new employee
has already replaced her.

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 difficulty in the case of Villa arises from determining
whether the retirement was voluntary or involuntary. The line between the two is thin
but it is one that the Court has drawn. On one hand, voluntary retirement cuts the
employment ties leaving no residual employer liability; on the other, involuntary
retirement amounts to a discharge, rendering the employer liable for termination
without cause. 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
contemplated herein must be explicit, voluntary, free and uncompelled. In Jaculbe v.
Silliman University, we elucidated that:

[A]n employer is free to impose a retirement age less than 65 for as long as it
has the employees' consent. Stated conversely, 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. Thus, having terminated
petitioner solely on the basis of a provision of a retirement plan which was not
freely assented to by her, respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal.

b. NO. Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that the
overtime work was actually performed before the employee may properly claim the
benefit.[31] The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay rests on the employee
because the benefit is not incurred in the normal course of business.[32] Failure to
prove such actual performance transgresses the principles of fair play and equity

c. NO, to the overtime pay. NLRC's reliance on the daily time records (DTRs) showing
that Villa had stayed in the company's premises beyond eight hours was misplaced.
The DTRs did not substantially prove the actual performance of overtime work. The
petitioner correctly points out that any employee could render overtime work only
when there was a prior authorization therefor by the management.[33] Without the
prior authorization, therefore, Villa could not validly claim having performed work
beyond the normal hours of work. Moreover, Section 4(c), Rule I, Book III of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code relevantly states as follows:
 (c) If the work performed was necessary, or it benefited the employer, or the
employee could not abandon his work at the end of his normal working hours
because he had no replacement, all time spent for such work shall be
considered as hours worked, if the work was with the knowledge of his
employer or immediate supervisor. (bold emphasis supplied

YES, to the 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.

The Labor Arbiter originally awarded the service incentive leave pay because the
petitioner did not present proof showing that Villa had been justly paid. The petitioner
submitted the affidavits of Zanoria explaining the payment of service incentive leave
after the Labor Arbiter had rendered her decision. But that was not enough, for
evidence should be presented in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, not after
the rendition of the adverse decision by the Labor Arbiter 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.