ABUDA, et al v. L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY FARMS, JULIANA NATIVIDAD, and MERLINDA NATIVIDAD. G.R. No. 200712 | 2018
835 Phil. 554
G.R. No. 200712. July 04, 2018
MARIO A. ABUDA, RODOLFO DEL REMEDIOS, EDWARDO DEL REMEDIOS, RODOLFO L. ZAMORA, DIONISIO ADLAWAN, ELPIDIO GARCIA, JR., ROGELIO ZAMORA, SR., JIMMY TORRES, POLICARPIO OBANEL, JOSE FERNANDO, JOHNNY BETACHE, JAYSON GARCIA, EDWIN ESPE, NEMENCIO CRUZ, LARRY ABANES, ROLANDO SALEN, JOSEPH TORRES, FRANCISCO LIM, ARNALDO GARCIA, WILFREDO BRONOLA, GLENN MORAN, JOSE GONZALES, ROGER MARTINEZ, JAIME CAPELLAN, RICHARD ORING, JEREMIAS CAPELLAN, ARNEL CAPELLAN, MELCHOR CAPELLAN, ROLLY PUGOY, JOEY GADONES, ARIES CATIANG, LEONEL LATUGA, CAPILLAN,
PETITIONERS,
V.
L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY FARMS, JULIANA NATIVIDAD, AND MERLINDA NATIVIDAD,
RESPONDENTS.
Ponente: LEONEN, J.:
Nature of Petitiom:
This resolves the Petition for Review[1] filed by Mario A. Abuda, Rodolfo Del Remedios, Edwardo Del Remedios, Rodolfo L. Zamora, Dionisio Adlawan, Elpidio Garcia, Jr., Rogelio Zamora, Sr., Jimmy Torres, Policarpio Obanel, Jose Fernando, Johnny Betache, Jayson Garcia, Edwin Espe, Nemencio Cruz, Larry Abañes, Rolando Salen, Joseph Torres, Francisco Lim, Arnaldo Garcia, Wilfredo Broñola, Glenn Moran, Jose Gonzales, Roger Martinez, Jaime Capellan, Richard Oring, Jeremias Capellan, Arnel Capellan, Melchor Capellan, Rolly Pugoy, Joey Gadones, Aries Catiang, Leonel Latuga, Vicente Go, Temmie C. Nawal, and Eduardo A. Capillan (collectively, workers), assailing the October 11, 2011 Decision[2] and February 8, 2012 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117681.
Dispositive portion:
The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of backwages and other monetary awards due to petitioners.
Doctrines:
The necessity or desirability of the work performed by an employee can be inferred from the length of time that an employee has been performing this work. If an employee has been employed for at least one (1) year, he or she is considered a regular employee by operation of law.
De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission[54] instructs that "[t]he primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer." The connection is determined by considering the nature of the work performed vis-a-vis the entirety of the business or trade. Likewise, if an employee has been on the job for at least one (1) year, even if the performance of the job is intermittent, the repeated and continuous need for the employee's services is sufficient evidence of the indispensability of his or her services to the employer's business.
Respondents did not refute petitioners' claims that they continuously worked for respondents for a period ranging from three (3) years to 17 years. Thus, even if the Court of Appeals is of the opinion that carpentry and masonry are not necessary or desirable to the business of livestock and poultry production, the nature of their employment could have been characterized as being under the second paragraph of Article 280. Thus, petitioners' service of more than one (1) year to respondents has made them regular employees for so long as the activities they were required to do subsist.
Synopsis:
Here, the workers of L. Natividad Poultry Farms filed complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, thirteenth-month pay, and moral and exemplary damages against it and its owner and manager. The complaint was initially dismissed due to the lack of employer-employee relationship between the workers and L. Natividad. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found that the workers were hired as maintenance personnel by San Mateo General Services and Del Remedios on a "pakyaw" basis to perform specific services for L. Natividad.
The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the NLRC's decision, ruling that San Mateo and Del Remedios were labor-only contractors, and as such, they must be considered as L. Natividad's agents. However, the CA upheld the NLRC's finding that the maintenance personnel were only hired on a "pakyaw" basis to perform necessary repairs or construction within the farm as the need arose. The petitioners claimed that as maintenance personnel assigned to L. Natividad's farms and sales outlets, they performed functions that were necessary and desirable to L. Natividad's usual business. They asserted that they have been continuously employed by L. Natividad for a period ranging from more than 1 year to 17 years.
The main issue was whether the petitioners' maintenance personnel in L. Natividad Poultry Farms can be considered as regular employees. The court ruled that petitioners' service of more than 1 year to respondents has made them regular employees for as long as the activities they were required to do subsist. Despite the CA's opinion that carpentry and masonry are not necessary or desirable to the business of livestock and poultry production, the nature of their employment could have been characterized as being under the second paragraph of Article 280. A careful review of petitioners' activity as maintenance personnel and of the entirety of respondents' business shows that they performed activities which were necessary and desirable to respondents' business of poultry and livestock production. Petitioners performed "repair works and maintenance services such as fixing livestock and poultry houses and facilities as well as doing construction activities within the premises of L. Natividad's farms and other sales outlets for an uninterrupted period of 3 to 17 years."
In conclusion, the court ruled that the petitioners' maintenance personnel were regular employees and that they performed necessary and desirable functions for L. Natividad's usual business. The decision serves as a reminder to employers to review their employment practices and ensure that their workers are classified correctly to avoid unnecessary legal disputes.