BENARES V PANCHO

Complainants move to question the decision of the labor arbiter on the ground that it abused
7. JOSEFINA BENARES, petitioner, vs. JAIME PANCHO, RODOLFO PANCHO, JR., JOSELITO its discretion by dismissing the case on the ground that complainants failed to discuss the facts
MEDALLA, PAQUITO MAGALLANES, ALICIA MAGALLANES, EVELYN MAGALLANES, VIOLETA and circumstances.
VILLACAMPA, MARITESS PANCHO, ROGELIO PANCHO AND ARNOLFO PANCHO, respondents.
G.R. No. 151827. April 29, 2005 The NLRC held that respondents attained the status of regular seasonal workers of Hda.
Romeo Lanzarrote Maasin II having worked therein from 1964-1985. It found that petitioner failed to discharge
the burden of proving that the termination of respondents was for a just or authorized cause.
Hence, respondents were illegally dismissed and should be awarded their money claims.
MR DENIED
EMPLOYER: (FIELD OF INDUSTRY OR NATURE OF BUSINESS)
COURT OF APPEALS
HDA The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRCs ruling, with the modification that the
backwages and other monetary benefits shall be computed from the time
EMPLOYEE (NATURE OF WORK/ SERVICES RENDERED/ ALLEGED compensation was withheld in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code, as
RELATIONSHIP) amended by Republic Act No. 6715.
THEY WORKED AS SUGAR FARM WORKERS MR DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT.
FACTS. ISSUE/S and RULING:
1. On July 24, 1991, complainants thru counsel wrote the Regional Director of the
Department of Labor and Employment, Bacolod City for intercession particularly in WON respondents are regular employees of Hacienda Maasin II and thus entitled to
the matter of wages and other benefits mandated by law. monetary claims? YES
2. On September 24, 1991, a routine inspection was conducted by personnel of the
Bacolod District Office of the Department of Labor and Employment. Accordingly, a
WON respondents were illegally dismissed? YES
report and recommendation was made, hence, the endorsement by the Regional
Director of the instant case to the Regional Arbitration Branch, NLRC, Bacolod City
for proper hearing and disposition. HELD:
3. On October 15, 1991, complainants alleged to have been terminated without being
paid termination benefits by respondent in retaliation to what they have done in The law provides for three kinds of employees:
reporting to the Department of Labor and Employment their working conditions viz- (1) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually
a-viz (sic) wages and other mandatory benefits. necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer;
4. On July 14, 1992, notification and summons were served to the parties wherein (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
complainants were directed to file a formal complaint. Eventually formal complaint undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
was filed for illegal dismissal with money claims. engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in
5. From the records, summons and notices of hearing were served to the parties and nature and the employment is for the duration of the season; and
apparently no amicable settlement was arrived, hence, the parties were directed to (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees.
file their respective position papers.
6. On August 17, 1994, from the Minutes of the scheduled hearing, respondent failed The court compared two decisions it made both on April 2005:
to appear, and that the Office will evaluate the records of the case whether to Mercado v NLRC Hda Fatima v National Fed of Sugarcane Workers-Food and
conduct a formal trial on the merits or not, and that the corresponding order will be General Trade
issued.
Facts: The workers were engaged to do a particular phase of agricultural work necessary
LABOR ARBITER for rice and/or sugarcane production, after which they would be free to render services
to other farm workers in need of their services.
DISMISSED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF MERIT.
Ruling: Seasonal workers do not become regular employees by the mere fact that they
NLRC have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, because the
proviso in the 2nd paragraph of Article 280 demarcates casual employees, all other
employees who do not fall under the definition of the preceding paragraph. It deems as
LABOR LAW 1 | LABOR LAW COOL KIDS | QUAN
regular employees those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of
service regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or broken.
Facts: Respondents performed same tasks for petitioners every season for
several years.
Ruling: They were considered the petitioner’s regular employees for their respective
tasks. The fact that they do not work continuously for one whole year but only for the
duration of the season does not detract from considering them in regular employment
since in a litany of cases this Court has already settled that seasonal workers who are
called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are not
separated from service in that period, but merely considered on leave until re-employed.
Citing jurisprudence, the Court, in Hacienda Fatima, condensed the rule that the primary
standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee vis-a-vis the usual trade or business of the
employer. This connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed
and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. If the employee
has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and
merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business.
Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while
such activity exists.
The issue, therefore, of whether respondents were regular employees of petitioner has been
adequately dealt with. The labor arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals have similarly
held that respondents were regular employees of petitioner. Since it is a settled rule that the
factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies which have acquired expertise in the matters
entrusted to their jurisdiction are accorded by this Court not only respect but even finality, we
shall no longer disturb this finding.
We also find no reason to disturb the finding that respondents were illegally terminated.
When there is no showing of clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment,
the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to
prove that the termination was for a just or authorized cause. In this case, as found both by the
NLRC and the Court of Appeals, petitioner failed to prove any such cause for the dismissal of
respondents.
DECISION.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals respectively dated June 29, 2001 and November 28,
2001 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.
LABOR LAW 1 | LABOR LAW COOL KIDS | QUAN

BENARES V PANCHO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENARES V PANCHO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainants move to question the decision of the labor arbiter on the ground that it abused

LABOR LAW 1 | LABOR LAW COOL KIDS | QUAN

You might also like