SC: Seasonal workers can be deemed regular employees

HACIENDA TOIL Workers load newly harvested sugarcane at Barangay Mabilog, Concepcion, Tarlac, in this November 2011 file photo. In Negros Occidental, farm workers like them recently secured a favorable Supreme Court ruling in connection with a 2009 labor case. —LYN RILLON

Can a seasonal worker be classified as a regular employee?

The Supreme Court, ruling on a 2009 labor case involving a sugar plantation worker who was dismissed from a hacienda in Negros Occidental, says that type of employee can be given regular employment status if he or she performs work or services that are “seasonal in nature” and is employed to perform 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,” the high court said in a decision promulgated on Nov. 13, 2023, but was posted on its website only on Feb. 16.

‘Pakyaw’ scheme

It said that being compensated under a “pakyaw” scheme or task basis arrangement would not invalidate 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.”

The Supreme Court ruling dismissed the petition for review on certiorari filed by Hacienda San Isidro/Silos Farms and Rey Silos Llamado challenging the Court of Appeals’ (CA) 2013 decision that declared Helen Villarue a regular employee of the sugar plantation and ordered the payment of her back wages and separation pay.

Villarue’s husband, Lucito, was also named respondent in the petition.

READ: PSA: Seasonal jobs cut unemployment in October

Based on court records, the couple worked at Hacienda San Isidro in Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, which is administered by Llamado, and which forms part of Silos Farms, owned by Fidel Silos.

In 2009, the Villarues filed separate complaints before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and payment of service incentive leave pay and attorney’s fees.

The labor arbiter in 2011 ruled that the dismissal of Lucito was for a “just cause but without due process” and ordered Silos Farm and Silos to pay P5,000 for nominal damages. Helen, on the other hand, was found to be a regular employee and was declared legally dismissed.

The petitioners subsequently filed a memorandum of partial appeal before the NLRC, which sided with them and modified the decision of the labor arbiter—that Lucito was afforded due process when he was dismissed and that Helen was not an employee of the hacienda.

The NLRC also ordered the cancellation of the P5,000 award for nominal damages.

‘Power of control’

The Villarues filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted by the NLRC in 2012 and which resulted in the reinstatement of the initial decision of the labor arbiter. The NLRC ruled that the couple was illegally dismissed and ordered the petitioners to pay them a total of P481,035.23 for separation pay, back wages, wage differential, 13th month pay and attorney’s fees.

This prompted the petitioners to elevate the case to the CA, which initially ruled that “Helen failed to prove the existence of all the elements to establish an employer-employee relationship between her and the petitioners, particularly the vital element of power of control.”

However, upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in 2013, the CA overturned its previous decision and affirmed the rulings of both the labor arbiter and the NLRC that Helen was a regular employee of the petitioners based on Article 280 (now 295) of the Labor Code.

Constant rehiring

The appeals court said it deemed that Helen was a casual employee “but can be considered a regular employee for having rendered at least one year of service, being constantly rehired until her dismissal.”

The CA cited the second paragraph of Article 295 of the Labor Code which states “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 [or she] is employed and his [or her] employment shall continue while such activity exists.”

In its petition before the high tribunal, the employers argued that Helen “merely worked sparingly in the hacienda on [a] pakyaw basis,” and that they did not have any control over the manner by which she performed her work.

They added that Helen was free to work elsewhere, noting that she was hired intermittently, counting “patdan” (small cuttings of sugarcane) and also managed and operated her own “sari-sari” (variety) store.

But since the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA all found that Helen was a regular employee of the petitioners, the Supreme Court said it deemed the decision with respect and finality.

The high court, however, corrected the CA’s justification in arriving at the conclusion that Helen was a regular employee, saying that it was “erroneous” for the appeals court to categorize her as a casual employee by applying the second paragraph of Article 295 of the Labor Code.

According to the Supreme Court, the basis should be the exception indicated in the first paragraph of that law, which states that those not covered by regular employment are only those seasonal workers whose employment is “for the duration of the season.”

“Hence, seasonal employees who were employed for more than one season in the work or service that they seasonally perform no longer fall under the exception in the first paragraph, but under the general rule of regular employment,” it said.

The high court noted that while farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees, it had consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered regular employees.

“[Helen] was hired repeatedly for the same activities, i.e., sugarcane cultivation, counting patdan, etc. Hence, whether she was free to make her services available to other farm owners is of no relevance here. The fact that she maintains a sari-sari store is likewise inconsequential and not incompatible with her regular employment status with petitioners,” it said. INQ