Mercado, Sr. v.
NLRC NLRCs Comment:
GR No. 76869 | 201 SCRA 332 | September 25, 1991
Petition: Petition for certiorari to review
Petitioner: FORTUNATO MERCADO SR. et. Al
Respondent: NLRC, AUROA CRUZ, SPS. FRANCISO DE BORJA and LETICIA DE
BORJA; and STO. NIO REALTY, INCORPORATED
DOCTRINE
FACTS
- Mercado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other incentives against
Aurora Cruz, Sps. De Borja and Sto. Nino Realty.
- Mercado alleged that they were agricultural workers utilized by Aurora Cruz
in their 7 hectares of rice land and 10 hectares of sugar land.
o Mercado worked in the farm since 1949 until 1979, when they were
all allegedly dismissed from employment.
- Aurora Cruz denied that Mercado et al. were her regular employees and
instead averred that she engaged their service through Mercado, who take
charge in supplying the number of workers needed in the farms to do a
particular phase of agricultural work.
- LA: ruled in favor of Aurora Cruz
o Held that Mercado et al. were not regular and permanent workers of
Cruz because they were required to perform phases of agricultural
work for a definite period of time after which their services would be
available to any other farm owner.
o LA awarded financial assistance of 10,000 to be divided among the
petitioners.
o Both Mercado and Cruz appealed.
- NLRC: Affirmed and ruled in favor of Aurora Cruz
o Deleted the Financial Assistance of 10,000
Hence, this petition.
Mercados Contention:
- That LA and NLRC erred when both ruled that Mercado et al. are not regular
and permanent employees. Thus, contrary to the provision of Art. 280 of
Labor Code.
- That they were seasonal employees, continued for so many years such that,
they become regular and permanent employees as provided by Labor Code.
- That Mercado et al. fall under the exception provided by Art. 280, which
provided that where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N Mercado et al. should be considered as seasonal employees.
RULING & RATIO
1. YES
- Art. 280 Par. 1, answers the question of who are REGULAR EMPLOYEES.
Regardless of any written or oral agreement to the contrary, an employee is
deemed regular where he is engaged in necessary or desirable activities in
the usual business or trade of the employer, except for project employees.
- A PROJECT EMPLOYEES has been defined to be one whose employment
has been fixed for a specific project, the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee, or
where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season, as in the present case.
- The second paragraph of Art. 280 demarcates as CASUAL EMPLOYEES,
all other employees who do not fall under the definition of the preceding
paragraph
-
- Policy Instruction No. 12 of the DOLE discloses that the concept of regular
and casual employees was designed to put an end to casual employment in
regular jobs
- applicable only to the employees who are deemed casuals' but not to
the project employees nor the regular employees treated in
paragraph one of Art. 280.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission affirming that of the Labor Arbiter, under review, is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
Page 1 of 1