G.R. No. 175869 - Robina Farms Cebu vs. Villa

Elizabeth Villa was employed by Robina Farms as a sales clerk since August 1981.
In the later part of 2001, the petitioner encouraged her to avail herself of a special retirement program offered to long‑serving employees.
Villa applied for retirement under this program on December 12, 2001, an initiative that later became a central issue in the dispute.

In early 2002, Villa received a memorandum on March 2, 2002 from Lily Ngochua directing her to explain why invoices for unhatched eggs in January and February 2002 were not issued on time.
Villa explained that delays were due to the late receipt and oversight of delivery receipts.
Despite her explanation, Villa was suspended from March 8, 2002 until March 19, 2002.
Upon returning to work after the suspension, Villa was advised to cease reporting for duty because her retirement application had already been approved. Later, she was informed that her application was disapproved and was further advised to tender her resignation with a request for financial assistance.

After Villa signaled her intent to continue working, the petitioner confiscated her gate pass and prevented her from entering the company premises.
Evidence indicated that another employee had already been assigned to replace Villa.
The petitioner argued that the administrative hearing showed Villa’s failure to adhere to the company's rules on the timely issuance of invoices, which justified her suspension.

At the Labor Arbiter level (rendered on April 21, 2003), it was determined that Villa had not been formally dismissed from employment.

The Labor Arbiter ordered Villa’s reinstatement to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges.
Claims for backwages and overtime pay were denied due to insufficient evidence, while service incentive leave pay was awarded for the last three years.

The NLRC, on February 23, 2005, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and declared Villa to have been illegally dismissed.

The NLRC ordered immediate reinstatement along with the payment of backwages, service incentive leave pay, overtime pay, and attorney’s fees.
The petitioner’s appeal before the NLRC was dismissed on grounds of defective verification and failure to submit the required certificate of non‑forum shopping.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA challenging the NLRC’s decision.
The CA dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on technical grounds, particularly the absence of properly verified and certified pleadings (unsigned memorandum on appeal and belated submission of required documents).
The CA affirmed, with modification, the NLRC’s decision finding Villa’s illegal dismissal.

The CA held that the petitioner’s advice for Villa to tender her resignation and seek financial assistance indicated an intention to sever the employment relationship.
The decision, however, modified liability by absolving petitioner Lily Ngochua from responsibility.

The petitioner contended that Villa’s appeal should be rendered void as an unsigned pleading and that the NLRC lacked jurisdiction in overturning the Labor Arbiter’s final decision.
Additionally, the petitioner argued that Villa’s actions in applying for retirement were voluntary and did not constitute grounds for illegal dismissal.
The petitioner also raised issues regarding the entitlement to overtime pay, pointing out that any overtime work performed lacked prior authorization and supporting evidence.

Whether the failure of the petitioner to submit a properly verified memorandum on appeal, including the required certificate of non‑forum shopping, warrants dismissal of its petition for certiorari.

Whether Villa’s application for early retirement, coupled with the petitioner’s advisement to tender a resignation with a request for financial assistance, indicates a voluntary termination of employment or amounts to an illegal dismissal.

Whether Villa established sufficient evidence to claim overtime work despite the absence of documented prior authorization, and if the data in the daily time records substantiate the overtime claim.
Relatedly, whether the payment of vacation and sick leave precludes her claim for service incentive leave pay.

Whether the NLRC and subsequent judicial bodies properly applied the principles governing voluntary versus involuntary retirement, the rules on verification of pleadings, and the fairness of terminating an employment relationship.