The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
Doctrine:
A seasonal employee is deemed a regular employee if they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature and is employed to perform such work or services for more than one season. The fact that an employee is free to make their services available to others does not negate regular employment status for as long as they are hired repeatedly for the same activities and not merely on and off for any single phase of agricultural work. Likewise, being compensated under a pakyaw scheme does not negate regular employment so long as the employer has the right to exercise the power of control or supervision over the performance of an employee’s duties, regardless of whether the same is actually exercised.
Facts:
Spouses Lucito Villaruel (Lucita) and Helen (Spouses Villaruel) worked in Hacienda San Isidro, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, administered by Rey Silos Llamado, and which forms part of Silos Farms, owned by Fidel Silos.
On December 18, 2009 and April 7, 2010, the Spouses Villaruel filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) their separate complaints against petitioners for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and payment of service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees.
On February 14, 2011, a Decision was rendered the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, it is hereby declared that the dismissal of [respondent] Lucita Villaruel is for a just cause but without due process. Consonant with this finding, [petitioner] Silos Farm and/or [petitioner] Fidel Silos are hereby ordered to pay said [respondent] nominal damages in the amount of Five Thousand ([PHP]5,000.00) Pesos. [Respondent] Helen Villaruel is hereby found to be a regular employee of [petitioners] and being declared having been [sic] illegally dismissed from her employment. xxx”
On September 30, 2011, the NLRC rendered a Decision granting the petitioners’ appeal as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioners’] appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is MODIFIED with respect to the following:
- [Respondent] Lucito Villaruel was dismissed and was afforded . WITH DUE PROCESS;
- The award of [PHP]5,000.00 in favor of Lucito Villaruel in the concept of nominal damages is DELETED;
- [Respondent] Helen Villaruel is not an employee of the hacienda; hence, she is not entitled to her money claims and her complaint must be accordingly DISMISSED. xxx
Aggrieved, Spouses Villaruel filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November 21, 2011, which was subsequently granted by the NLRC in its Resolution. In tum, petitioners filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 27, 2012, which the NLRC denied in its Resolution dated March 30, 2012. Undeterred, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which the CA granted in its Decision dated March 27, 2013.
However, upon the Spouses Villaruel’s motion for reconsideration dated May 27, 2013, the CA, through its assailed Amended Decision dated January 9, 2015, reversed its previous ruling that Helen was not an employee, much less a regular employee, of the petitioners and therefore cannot be illegally dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not Helen is a seasonal worker in the sugar plantation, and should be considered a regular employee.
Ruling:
Helen is a seasonal worker and should be considered as a regular employee.
At the outset, it is undisputed that Helen is a seasonal worker. However, the parties differ as to whether she may be considered a regular employee.
The LA, the NLRC, and the CA uniformly found that Helen was a regular employee of petitioners. It is a settled rule that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies which have acquired expertise in the matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded by this Court not only respect but even finality. Thus, We shall no longer disturb his finding. However, while we agree with the CA that Helen was a regular employee, We disagree with its ratiocination in arriving at said conclusion and deem it necessary, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, to correct such erroneous reasoning.
Art. 295 (formerly Art. 280) of the Labor Code provides:
“Article 295. Regular and casual employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he [ or she] is employed and his [ or her] employment shall continue while such activity exists.”
It is erroneous for the CA to categorize Helen as a casual employee and apply the proviso under the second paragraph. The general rule is that the office of a proviso is to qualify or modify only the phrase immediately preceding it or restrain or limit the generality of the clause that it immediately follows. The second paragraph and its proviso take effect only if the employee is not covered by the first paragraph.
The basis for saying that Helen is a regular seasonal employee is, therefore, not the proviso in the second paragraph but the exception to the exception, i.e., the general rule enunciated in the first paragraph. The first paragraph of Art. 280 (now Art. 295) excepts from regular employment status only those seasonal employees whose employment is “for the duration of the season,” i.e., for one season. Hence, seasonal employees who were employed for more than one season in the work or service that they seasonally perform no longer fall under the exception in the first paragraph, but under the general rule of regular employment.
From the foregoing, the following reqms1tes for the attainment of regular employment status by a seasonal employee may be deduced: 1) The seasonal employee performs work or services that are seasonal in nature; and 2) The seasonal employee is employed to perform such work or services for more than one season.
The above requisites are present in this case. In fact, petitioners have repeatedly emphasized that they do not dispute the fact that Helen performs work that is seasonal in nature and that such cycle is repeated every year. Nonetheless, they claim that she still cannot be considered a regular employee because of an exception that we laid down in our ruling in Gapayao, citing Mercado, where we held that when seasonal employees are free to contract their services with other farm owners, the former are not regular employees.
Further, whether she was free to make her services available to other farm owners is of no relevance here. The fact that she maintains a sari-sari store is likewise inconsequential and not incompatible with her regular employment status with petitioners.
We also clarified that the control test “merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof. It is not essential that the employer actually supervises the performance of duties by the employee. It is enough that the former has a right to wield the power.”
Since Helen performed her tasks at petitioners’ hacienda, the latter could easily exercise control and supervision over the former. Accordingly, whether petitioners actually exercised this right or power to control is immaterial as the law simply requires the existence of such right and the opportunity to control and supervise.
Source: Supreme Court
PREVIOUS: PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE vs. RIA DE GUZMAN RIVERA (G.R. No. 217411, December 13, 2023)
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.