April 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions >
G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016 - ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH VILLA, Respondent.:
G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016 - ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH VILLA, Respondent.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016
ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH VILLA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The employer appeals the decision promulgated on September 27, 2006,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed its petition for certiorari and affirmed with modification the adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring it liable for the illegal dismissal of respondent employee.
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.
In her verified position paper,2 Villa averred that she had been employed by petitioner Robina Farms as sales clerk since August 1981; that in the later part of 2001, the petitioner had enticed her to avail herself of the company's special retirement program; that on March 2, 2002, she had received a memorandum from Lily Ngochua requiring her to explain her failure to issue invoices for unhatched eggs in the months of January to February 2002; that she had explained that the invoices were not delivered on time because the delivery receipts were delayed and overlooked; that despite her explanation, she had been suspended for 10 days from March 8, 2012 until March 19, 2002; that upon reporting back to work, she had been advised to cease working because her application for retirement had already been approved; that she had been subsequently informed that her application had been disapproved, and had then been advised to tender her resignation with a request for financial assistance; that she had manifested her intention to return to work but the petitioner had confiscated her gate pass; and that she had since then been prevented from entering the company premises and had been replaced by another employee.
The petitioner admitted that Villa had been its sales clerk at Robina Farms. It stated that on December 12, 2001, she had applied for retirement under the special privilege program offered to its employees in Bulacan and Antipolo who had served for at least 10 years; that in February 2002, her attention had been called by Anita Gabatan of the accounting department to explain her failure to issue invoices for the unhatched eggs for the month of February; that she had explained that she had been busy; that Gabatan had referred the matter to Florabeth Zanoria who had in turn relayed the matter to Ngochua; and that the latter had then given Villa the chance to explain, which she did.
The petitioner added that after the administrative hearing Villa was 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; that she had been suspended from her employment as a consequence; that after serving the suspension, she 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 petitioners.3
On April 21, 2003, Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug rendered her decision4 finding that Villa had not been dismissed from employment, holding thusly:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Complainant's application, insofar the benefits are concerned, was not approved which means that while her application for retirement was considered, management was willing to give her retirement benefits equivalent only to half-month pay for every year of service and not 86% of her salary for every year of service as mentioned in her application. Mrs. De Guzman suggested that if she wanted to pursue her supposed retirement despite thereof, she should submit a resignation letter and include therein a request for financial assistance. We do not find anything illegal or violative in the suggestion made by Mrs. De Guzman. There was no compulsion since the choice was left entirely to the complainant whether to pursue it or not.5ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryAlthough ordering Villa's reinstatement, the Labor Arbiter denied her claim for backwages and overtime pay because she had not adduced evidence of the overtime work actually performed. The Labor Arbiter declared that Villa was entitled to service incentive leave pay for the period of the last three years counted from the filing of her complaint because the petitioner did not refute her claim thereon. Thus, the Labor Arbiter disposed as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents ROBINA FARMS CEBU (a Division of UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION) and LILY NGOCHUA to REINSTATE complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision but without payment of backwages. Respondents are also ordered to pay complainant SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR PESOS (P7,194.00) as service incentive leave pay benefits.The parties respectively appealed to the NLRC.
The other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.6ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On February 23, 2005, the NLRC rendered its judgment dismissing the appeal by the petitioner but granting that of Villa,7 to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of respondents is hereby DISMISSED for non-perfection while the appeal of complainant is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Labor Arbiter is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one ENTERED declaring complainant to have been illegally dismissed. Consequently, respondents are hereby directed to immediately reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision and to pay complainant the following sums, to wit:
1. Backwages P 119,900.00