ROBINA FARMS CEBU / UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v.

ELIZABETH VILLA G.R. No. 175869, Apr 18, 2016

ROBINA FARMS CEBU / UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. ELIZABETH VILLA
G.R. No. 175869, Apr 18, 2016
Topic: Overtime Pay, Overtime Work Authorization, Burden of proving entitlement to
Overtime Pay
Labor Law Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (12 August 2017)

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.

On April 21, 2003, Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug rendered her decision finding that Villa had
not been dismissed from employment.

Although 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.

On February 23, 2005, the NLRC rendered its judgment dismissing the appeal by the petitioner
but granting that of Villa.

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
Overtime Pay.

According to the NLRC, the petitioner's appeal was fatally defective and was being dismissed
outright because it lacked the proper verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.

On September 27, 2006, the CA promulgated its assailed decision dismissing the petition for
certiorari.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack
of merit. The assailed decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that petitioner Lily Ngochua
should not be held liable with petitioner corporation.

The petitioner posits that the CA erroneously affirmed the giving of overtime pay and service
incentive leave pay to Villa; that she did not adduce proof of her having rendered actual overtime
work; that she had not been authorized to render overtime work; and that her availment of vacation
and sick leaves that had been paid precluded her claiming the service incentive leave pay.

ISSUE 1:

Whether or not the burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay rests on the employer?
ISSUE 2:

Whether or not any employee could render overtime work without prior authorization by the
management?

RULING:

No. The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay rests on the employee.

No. Any employee can render overtime work only when there was a prior authorization by the
management.

We partly agree with the petitioner's position.

Firstly, 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. The burden of proving
entitlement to overtime pay rests on the employee because the benefit is not incurred in the
normal course of business. Failure to prove such actual performance transgresses the principles
of fair play and equity.

And, secondly, the 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. 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:

Section 4. Principles in determining hours worked. – The following general principles shall govern
in determining whether the time spent by an employee is considered hours worked for purposes
of this Rule:

(a)
x x x.
(b)
x x x.
(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)
 GRACE CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL, represented by its Principal, DR. JAMES TAN,
Petitioner,

v.

FILIPINAS A. LAVANDERA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 177845 August 20, 2014

PONENTE: Perlas-Bernabe

TOPIC: Retirement pay benefits

FACTS:

Filipinas was employed by petitioner Grace Christian High School (GCHS) as high
school teacher since June1977, with a monthly salary of 18,662.00 as of May 31, 2001.

On August 30, 2001, Filipinas filed a complaint for illegal (constructive) dismissal, non-
payment of service incentive leave (SIL) pay, separation pay, service allowance, damages, and
attorney’s fees against GCHS and/or its principal, Dr. James Tan. She alleged that on May 11,
2001, she was informed that her services were to be terminated effective May 31, 2001, pursuant
to GCHS’ retirement plan which gives the school the option to retire a teacher who has rendered
at least 20 years of service, regardless of age, with a retirement pay of one-half (½) month for
every year of service. At that time, Filipinas was only 58 years old and still physically fit to work.
She pleaded with GCHS to allow her to continue teaching but her services were terminated,
contrary to the provisions of Republic Act No. (RA) 7641, otherwise known as the “Retirement
Pay Law.”

LA dismissed the illegal dismissal case but found the retirement benefits payable under
GCHS plan to be deficient. NLRC reversed LA’s award and held that retirement pay should
be computed based on her monthly salary at the time of her retirement. CA modified NLRC’s
decision and ruled that the computation of “one-half month salary” by equating it to”22.5 days”.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the multiplier “22.5 days” is to be used in computing the retirement pay
differentials of Filipinas.

HELD:
 YES. RA 7641, which was enacted on December 9, 1992, amended Article 287 of the
Labor Code, providing for the rules on retirement pay to qualified private sector employees in the
absence of any retirement plan in the establishment. The said law states that “an employee’s
retirement benefits under any collective bargainingagreement (CBA)]and other agreements shall
not be less than those provided” under the same – that is, at least one-half (1/2) month salary for
every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year –
and that “unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary
shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent
of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.”

Applicability of the 1/2 month salary provision

1. There is no CBA or other applicable agreement providing for retirement benefits to employees, or
2. There is a CBA or other applicable agreement providing for retirement benefits but it is below the
requirement set by law.

Verily, the determining factor in choosing which retirement scheme to apply is still
superiority in terms of benefits provided.

In the present case, GCHS has a retirement plan for its faculty and non-facultymembers,
which gives it the option to retire a teacher who has rendered at least 20 years of service, regardless
of age, with a retirement pay of one-half (1/2) month for every year of service. Considering,
however, that GCHS computed Filipinas’ retirement pay without including one-twelfth (1/12)
of her 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of her five (5) days SIL, both the NLRC and the
CA correctly ruled that Filipinas’ retirement benefits should be computed in accordance with
Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7641, being the more beneficent retirement
scheme. They differ, however, in the resulting benefit differentials due to divergent interpretations
of the term “one-half (1/2) month salary” as used under the law.

Elegir v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.: “one-half (1/2) month salary means 22.5 days: 15 days plus
2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the remaining 5 days for SIL.”

The Court sees no reason to depart from this interpretation. GCHS’ argument therefore
that the 5 days SIL should be likewise pro-rated to their 1/12 equivalent must fail.

Moreover, the Court held that the award of legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
the amount of P68,150.00 representing the retirement pay differentials due Filipinas should be
reckoned from the rendition of the LA’s Decision on March 26, 2002 and not from the filing of
the illegal dismissal complaint.