Hacienda San Isidro/Silos Farms v. Villaruel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents Spouses Lucito and Helen Villaruel were employed by petitioners Hacienda San Isidro/Silos Farms and Rey Silos Llamado. The Spouses Villaruel filed separate complaints against petitioners for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and service incentive leave pay. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found Lucito's dismissal to be for a just cause but without due process, ordering nominal damages. Helen was found to be a regular employee who was illegally dismissed, with an order for backwages and separation pay. The LA also ordered payment of proportionate 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay for Lucito. Procedural History The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially granted petitioners' partial appeal, deleting nominal damages for Lucito and dismissing Helen's complaint, finding she was not an employee. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the LA's decision, declaring both dismissals illegal and ordering backwages and separation pay for both Lucito and Helen, plus attorney's fees. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially ruled that Helen was not an employee. On motion for reconsideration, the CA amended its decision, reversing its prior ruling and declaring Helen a regular employee who was illegally dismissed, remanding the case for computation of awards. The CA denied petitioners' subsequent motion for partial reconsideration. The Petition Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Amended Decision and Resolution. The sole issue raised was whether Helen, as a seasonal worker in a sugar plantation, should be considered a regular employee. Petitioners argued that Helen, being a pakyaw worker free to contract her services elsewhere, should not be considered a regular employee, citing exceptions to the general rule on seasonal employment. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision that Helen was a regular employee, emphasizing that the pakyaw scheme is merely a method of payment and that the employer's right to control, not necessarily its exercise, is determinative of regular employment.
Issue(s)
Whether Helen Villaruel, a seasonal worker, should be considered a regular employee. Whether the pakyaw scheme and the alleged freedom to contract services elsewhere negate Helen Villaruel's regular employment status. Whether the employer's right to control, not necessarily the actual exercise thereof, is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Amended Decision dated January 9, 2015, and the Resolution dated July 20, 2015, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07025 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Helen Villaruel, a seasonal worker, should be considered a regular employee: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower tribunals that Helen was a regular employee. The Court reiterated that a seasonal employee is deemed regular if they perform seasonal work and are employed for more than one season. Helen performed work related to sugarcane cultivation for several years and for more than one harvesting season, fulfilling the criteria for regular employment. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded finality. On whether the pakyaw scheme and the alleged freedom to contract services elsewhere negate Helen Villaruel's regular employment status: The Court held that the pakyaw scheme is merely a method of compensation and does not negate regular employment, provided the employer has the right to control the performance of the work. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the exception in Gapayao v. Fulo, which states that seasonal employees free to contract their services elsewhere are not regular employees, was misplaced in this case. Unlike the workers in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, Helen was hired repeatedly for the same activities, not on and off for any single phase of agricultural work. Therefore, her alleged freedom to work elsewhere was irrelevant. On whether the employer's right to control, not necessarily the actual exercise thereof, is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship: The Court reiterated that the control test merely requires the existence of the right to control, not necessarily the actual exercise of it. It is sufficient that the employer has the right to wield the power of control. Since Helen performed her tasks at petitioners' hacienda, the latter had the opportunity to exercise control and supervision, making the actual exercise of this right immaterial. The Court also noted that the argument regarding the existence of the employer-employee relationship would require a factual review, which is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition reviewing a CA decision under Rule 65.
Main Doctrine
A seasonal employee is deemed a regular employee if they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature and are 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.