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:
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)
(d) x
x x.