(The case of Jaime Gapayao vs. Rosario Fulo, G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013)
Photo from Unsplash | no one cares
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.
AT A GLANCE:
- Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their job,and not because of the length of time they have worked.
- Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time.
(Jaime Gapayao vs. Rosario Fulo, G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013)
In the case of Jaime Gapayao vs. Rosario Fulo, the Supreme Court clarified the employment status of farmworkers, affirming that they generally fall under the definition of regular seasonal employees.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
- On 4 November 1997, Jaime Fulo (deceased) died of “acute renal failure secondary to 1st degree burn 70% secondary electrocution” while doing repairs at the residence and business establishment of GAPAYAO.
- Thereafter, ROSARIO filed a claim for social security benefits with the Social Security System (SSS). However, upon verification and evaluation, it was discovered that the deceased was not a registered member of the SSS.
- Upon the insistence of ROSARIO that her late husband had been employed by GAPAYAO from January 1983 up to his untimely death on 4 November 1997, the SSS conducted an investigation to clarify his status of employment. The findings are as follows:
- That Mr. Jaime Fulo was an employee of Jaime Gapayao as farm laborer from 1983 to 1997.
- Jaime Fulo is an employee of Mr. & Mrs. Jaime Gapayao on an extra basis.
- Mr. Jaime Fulo receives compensation on a daily basis ranging from ₱5.00 to ₱60.00 from 1983 to 1997.
- Sometimes Jaime Fulo is allowed to work in the farm as abaca harvester and earn 1/3 share of its harvest as his income.
- Mr. & Mrs. Gapayao hired the services of Jaime Fulo not only in the farm as well as in doing house repairs whenever it is available. Mr. Fulo receives his remuneration usually in the afternoon after doing his job.
- Mr. & Mrs. Gapayao hires 50-100 persons when necessary to work in their farm as laborer and Jaime Fulo is one of them. Jaime Fulo receives more or less ₱50.00 a day.
- Consequently, the SSS demanded that GAPAYAO remit the social security contributions of the deceased.
- On 6 May 2003, GAPAYAO disclaimed any liability on the premise that the deceased was not the former’s employee, but was rather an independent contractor whose tasks were not subject to GAPAYAO’s control and supervision. And that, assuming arguendo that the deceased was GAPAYAO’s employee, he was still not entitled to be paid his SSS premiums for the intervening period when he was not at work, as he was an “intermittent worker who was only summoned every now and then as the need arose. Hence, petitioner insisted that he was under no obligation to report the former’s demise to the SSS for social security coverage.
Issue: The sole issue is whether or not there exists between the deceased Jaime Fulo and GAPAYAO an employer-employee relationship that would merit an award of benefits in favor of ROSARIO under social security laws.
Ruling:
Farm workers may be considered regular seasonal employees.
Article 280 of the Labor Code states:
Article 280. 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 services 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 is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists.
Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their job,and not because of the length of time they have worked.
A reading of the records reveals that the deceased was indeed a farm worker who was in the regular employ of petitioner. From year to year, starting January 1983 up until his death, the deceased had been working on GAPAYAO’s land by harvesting abaca and coconut, processing copra, and clearing weeds. His employment was continuous in the sense that it was done for more than one harvesting season. Moreover, no amount of reasoning could detract from the fact that these tasks were necessary or desirable in the usual business of GAPAYAO.
The other tasks allegedly done by the deceased outside his usual farm work only bolster the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The deceased was a construction worker in the building and a helper in the bakery, grocery, hardware, and piggery – all owned by GAPAYAO. This fact only proves that even during the off season, the deceased was still in the employ of petitioner.
ON A FINAL NOTE
The Court’s ruling highlight the principle that seasonal employees may be considered regular employees, depending on the nature of their work relationship with the employer. Regular seasonal employees are those who are called to work intermittently, often during specific seasons or periods of high demand. Despite being temporarily laid off during the off-season, they are reemployed when their services are needed again.
It is crucial to understand that the classification as a regular employee is based on the nature of the job, not solely on the length of time an employee has worked. Regular seasonal employees maintain a continuous employment relationship with the employer, albeit with intermittent periods of work.
This ruling serves as a reminder to employers and employees alike that the nature of employment relationships can vary, and classification as a regular employee is not solely determined by continuous year-round employment.
Read also: Are Seasonal Employees Considered Regular Employees?
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.