Mercado, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, alleging to be regular agricultural workers, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of various benefits against private respondents Aurora L. Cruz, Spouses Francisco and Leticia de Borja, and Sto. Niño Realty, Inc. Petitioners claimed to have worked in the farms owned by the respondents for many years, some since 1949, up to April 1979, receiving stipulated daily wages. Private respondent Aurora Cruz denied that petitioners were her regular employees, averring that they were engaged through 'mandarols' (spouses Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Rosa Mercado) to perform specific phases of agricultural work for a definite period, after which they were free to serve other farm owners. The other private respondents denied any employment relationship, stating they were merely registered owners of the land. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, holding that petitioners were not regular and permanent workers because their hiring was for definite periods, and their claims for money claims prior to 1976 had prescribed. The Labor Arbiter awarded financial assistance to petitioners on grounds of equity, except for Fortunato Mercado, Jr. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but deleted the award of financial assistance. The NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioners sought reversal of the NLRC rulings, contending that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC erred in not considering them regular and permanent employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code, arguing that their long years of service, even if seasonal, should grant them regular status. They also invoked Policy Instruction No. 12 of the Department of Labor and Employment.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners were regular and permanent farm workers entitled to the benefits they prayed for, and whether they were illegally dismissed by the private respondents. Whether the proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code is applicable to the petitioners' case.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming that of the Labor Arbiter is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether petitioners were regular and permanent farm workers and illegally dismissed: The Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the petitioners were not regular and permanent workers. The nature of their hiring revealed that they were required to perform phases of agricultural work for a definite period, after which their services were available to any farm owner. The Labor Arbiter's finding that the petitioners' claim of working twelve hours a day, the whole year round, was an exaggeration was supported by the fact that rice and sugar cane planting do not entail year-round operations, especially on a comparatively small area. Furthermore, the sworn statement of one of the petitioners, Fortunato Mercado, Jr., indicated that they were hired on an 'on and off' basis as casuals, giving respondent Aurora Cruz the prerogative to engage them or not after each phase of work was completed. The Court also noted that the filing of the complaint might have been triggered by a criminal complaint for theft filed against Reynaldo Mercado, son of Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Rosa Mercado, as corroborated by the affidavit of Jesus David, a Zone Chairman, who stated that the petitioners were never regularly employed but were hired on-and-off as needed. On the applicability of the proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code: The Court clarified that the proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280, which states that any employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be considered a regular employee, is applicable only to employees deemed 'casuals' and not to 'project' employees or regular employees treated in the first paragraph of Article 280. The Court explained that the general rule is that an employee is deemed regular if engaged in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer's business, except for project employees. Project employees are those whose employment is fixed for a specific project or undertaking, or where the work is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. The Court held that the petitioners, being seasonal employees, their employment legally ends upon completion of the season, and their termination does not constitute illegal dismissal. The Court emphasized that Policy Instruction No. 12 of the Department of Labor and Employment was designed to end abuses of employers against employees and not to stifle small-scale businesses or oppress agricultural landowners. Therefore, the proviso was not intended to apply to seasonal employees like the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
Seasonal employees, whose work is for the duration of a season, are considered project employees and their employment legally ends upon completion of the season, thus not constituting illegal dismissal.