Facts:
Lilia P. Labadan, the petitioner, was employed by Forest Hills Academy (Forest Hills) in July 1989, initially as an elementary school teacher and later as a registrar and secondary school teacher from 1990 to 2002. On August 18, 2003, Labadan filed a complaint against Forest Hills and its administrator, Naomi Cabaluna, for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages (overtime pay, holiday pay, allowances, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave), illegal deductions, and damages.
Labadan claimed she had been implicitly permitted an extension of her leave, was never formally reprimanded or warned, and alleged illegal deductions for church tithes, and unpaid wages and benefits. Conversely, Forest Hills argued Labadan exceeded her approved leave without returning, her claims of deductions for church tithes were consensual given her membership in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and denied allegations of unpaid wages due to lack of evidence.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in Labadan’s favor, finding Forest Hills guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered monetary compensation for Labadan. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, dismissing Labadan’s complaint. The Court of Appeals dismissed Labadan’s Petition for Certiorari due to technical deficiencies. Labadan then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the decisions and claiming grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
Issues:
1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition on technical grounds.
2. Whether Labadan was illegally dismissed.
3. Entitlement to wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th-month pay, and service incentive leave.
4. Legality of the deduction of tithes from Labadan’s salary.
5. Forest Hills’ failure to remit SSS contributions.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the CA’s decision on technicalities, stating the interest of substantial justice prevails. It found that Labadan was not illegally dismissed as there was no substantial proof of dismissal given that Forest Hills retained her in its payroll despite her extended leave absence.
However, the Court granted Labadan’s claims for illegal deductions, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th-month pay, and unremitted SSS contributions. The deduction of tithes without written consent was deemed illegal. It directed a remand to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of money claims and awarded attorney’s fees.
Doctrine:
– In cases of alleged illegal dismissal, the burden of proof shifts: the employee must prove dismissal; thereafter, the employer must prove the legality of the dismissal.
– Deductions from wages without the employee’s written consent are prohibited, except as authorized by law.
Class Notes:
– Burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases: Initially on the employee to establish dismissal, then shifts to the employer to prove legality.
– Legitimate wage deductions must comply with Article 113 of the Labor Code, requiring employee consent or legal authorization.
– Employees are entitled to regular daily wages during holidays (Labor Code Article 94), service incentive leaves (Labor Code Article 95), and 13th-month pay (Presidential Decree No. 851), regardless of the absence of specific claims in their position paper.
– Non-remittance of SSS contributions by an employer constitutes a violation, with the burden of proof for payment on the employer.
Historical Background:
This case underscores the evolving jurisprudence related to labor disputes in the Philippines, highlighting the procedural challenges and substantive rights within the context of employment law. It sheds light on the principle of substantial justice over technicalities and reiterates essential protections afforded to employees under Philippine law concerning wages, benefits, and illegal deductions.
Leave a Reply