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.
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:
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
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: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. The NLRC held the petitioner liable for the illegal dismissal of Villa, observing that because Villa's retirement application had been subject to the approval of the management, her act of applying therefor did not indicate her voluntary intention to sever her employment relationship but only her opting to retire by virtue of her having qualified under the plan; that upon informing her about the denial of her application, the petitioner had advised her to tender her resignation and to request for financial assistance; that although she had signified her intention to return to work, the petitioner had prevented her from doing so by confiscating her gate pass and informing her that she had already bee n replaced by another employee; and that the petitioner neither disputed her allegations thereon, nor adduced evidence to controvert the same.9
1. Backwages P 119,900.002. SILP P 7,194.003. Overtime Pay P 3,445.00 Total P 130,539.014. Attorney's fees (10%) 13,053.90 Grand Total P 143,592.91
SO ORDERED.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On September 27, 2006, the CA promulgated its assailed decision dismissing the petition for certiorari,12 decreeing as follows:I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED PETITIONERS APPEAL MEMORANDUM ON A MERE TECHNICALITY AND NOT RESOLVE IT ON THE MERITS.II.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH IT LACKED THE PROPER VERIFICATION AND PROCEEDED TO RESOLVE HER APPEAL ON THE MERITS.III.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE WAS ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT BE IMMEDIATELY REINSTATED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS.IV.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DIRECTED PETITIONERS INCLUDING PETITIONER LILY NGOCHUA TO PAY PRIVATE RESPONDENT BACKWAGES, SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY, OVERTIME PAY AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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 other aspects of the assailed decision remains. Consequently, the prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is NOTED.The CA treated the petitioner's appeal as an unsigned pleading because the petitioner did not present proof showing that Florabeth P. Zanoria, its Administrative Officer and Chief Accountant who had signed the verification, had been authorized to sign and file the appeal. It opined that the belated submission of the secretary's certificate showing the authority of Bienvenido S. Bautista to represent the petitioner, and the special power of attorney executed by Bautista to authorize Zanoria to represent the petitioner did not cure the defect. It upheld the finding of the NLRC that the petitioner had illegally dismissed Villa. It deemed 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.
SO ORDERED.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT RULE THAT THERE WAS NO VERIFICATION All ACHED TO RESPONDENT VILLA'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL DATED MAY 29, 2003 AND THAT IT WAS AN UNSIGNED PLEADING AND WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT, MOREOVER, IT COMMITTED UNFAIR TREATMENTII
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT RULE THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FOURTH DIVISION HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REVERESE AND SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER DATED APRIL 21, 2003 WHICH HAD ALREA[D]Y BECOME FINAL AND IMMUTABLE AS FAR AS RESPONDENT IS CONCERNEDIII
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT COMMITTED MISAPPREHENSION OF THE FACTS AND ISSUED ITS DECISION AND RESOLUTION CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER.15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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. Records show that when private respondent reported back after her suspension, she was advised by Lucy de Guzman not to report back anymore as her application was approved, which was latter [sic] on disapproved. It is at this point that, said Lucy de Guzman had advised private respondent to tender a resignation letter with request for financial assistance. Not only Lucy De Guzman has advised her to tender her resignation letter. The letter of petitioner Lily Ngochua dated April 11, 2002 to private respondent which reads:Neither did Villa's application for early retirement manifest her intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. 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.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary"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.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.
"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."
It should be noted that when private respondent averred this statement in her position paper submitted before the Labor Arbiter petitioners did not refute the same. Neither did they contest this allegation in their supposed Appeal Memorandum nor in their Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed decision of public respondent. Basic is the rule that matters not controverted are deemed admitted. To contest this allegation at this point of proceeding is not allowed for it is a settled rule that matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are raised for the first time. To consider the alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.22ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[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.28 (bold emphasis supplied)Under the circumstances, the CA did not err in declaring the petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal for violating Article 28229 of the Labor Code and the twin notice rule.30
We uphold the grant of service incentive leave pay.
(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)(d) x x x.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 48-60; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor (retired).
2 Id. at 103-109.
3 Id. at 86-87.
4 Id. at 85-93.
5 Id. at 89-90.
6 Id. at 92.
7 Id. at 117-130.
8 Id. at 130.
9 Id. at 117-130.
10 Id at 137-141.
11 Id. at 52-53.
12 Supra note 1.
13 Id. at 59-60.
14 Id. at 62-63.
15 Id. at 27.
16Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr., G.R. No. 191906, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 343, 356; Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 583, 597.
17Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008, 571 SCRA 549, 557.
18Mangali v. Court of Appeals, August 21, 1980, 99 SCRA 236, 247.
19 Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Procedure; See Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu v. G.R. No. 204944-45, December 3, 2014, 744 SCRA 31, 52.
20Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr., supra note 16, at 344.
21Rollo, pp. 31-33.
22 Id. at 55-56.
23Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) v. Caballeda, G.R. No. 156644 July 28 2008, 560 SCRA 115, 132.
24Quevedo v. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Incorporated, G.R. No 168927, September 11, 2001, 599 SCRA 438, 446.cralawred
25Korean Air Co., Ltd. v. Yuson, G.R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 53, 69.
26Cercado v. Uniprom, Inc., G.R. No. 188154, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 281, 290.cralawred
27 G.R. No. 156934, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 445.
28 Id. at 452.
29 Now Article 297 pursuant to DOLE Advisory Order No. 1, series of 2015.
30Rollo, p. 58.
31Lagatic v. Notional Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 121004, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 251, 262.
32Loon v. Power Master, Inc., G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 441, 457.
33Rollo, p. 36.
34 Article 95, Labor Code.
35Rollo, p. 91.
36 Id. at 148-149.
37Filipinas (Prefabricated Bldg.) Systems "FILSYSTEMS," Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153859, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 404, 408.