3.

5 Seasonal Employees

 Mercado vs NLRC – seasonal employees

 Hacienda Fatima vs Nat’l Federation of Sugarcane Workers – regular employees

Emerging Trend: Regular Seasonal Workers

 Gapayao vs Fulo and SSS - regular seasonal employees

 Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati – regular seasonal
workers

3.6 Managerial employees vs supervisory employees

 Article 212 (m), LC; Policy Instruction No. 8
 Rural Bank of Cantilan vs Julve – supervisory employee
 Echevarria vs Venutek Medika – managerial employee
 MERCADO VS NLRC
Facts:

Petitioners were agricultural workers utilized by Aurora Cruz in all the

agricultural phases of work on her rice land and sugar land.

Aurora Cruz denied that said petitioners were her regular employees and
instead averred that she engaged their services, through Spouses Mercado, their
"mandarols",

are persons who take charge in supplying the number of workers needed by
owners of various farms, but only to do a particular phase of agricultural work necessary in
rice production and/or sugar cane production, after which they would be free to render
services to other farm owners who need their services.
 MERCADO VS NLRC

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are regular

and permanent farm workers.
 MERCADO VS NLRC
Held:

Petitioners being project employees, or, to use the correct term, seasonal
employees, their employment legally ends upon completion of the project or
the season.

Labor Arbiter correctly ruled that petitioners were not regular and
permanent workers of the private respondents, for the nature of the terms
and conditions of their hiring reveal that 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.
 HACIENDA FATIMA VS NAT’L FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE WORKERS
Facts:

Hacienda Fatima did not any more give work assignments to the complainants forcing
the union to stage a strike.

But due to the conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another Memorandum of Agreement
was signed by the complainants and respondents.

But for all their persistence, the risk they had to undergo in conducting a strike in the
face of overwhelming odds, complainants in an ironic twist of fate now find
themselves being accused of ‘refusing to work and being choosy in the kind of
work they have to perform’.
 HACIENDA FATIMA VS NAT’L FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE WORKERS

Issue:

Whether or not respondents are regular

employees.
 HACIENDA FATIMA VS NAT’L FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE WORKERS
Held:

Respondents are regular employees.

The CA did not err when it held that respondents were regular employees
that while the work of respondents was seasonal in nature, they were
considered to be merely on leave during the off-season and were therefore
still employed by petitioners.

Moreover, the workers enjoyed security of tenure. Any infringement upon

this right was deemed by the CA to be tantamount to illegal dismissal.
 HACIENDA FATIMA VS NAT’L FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE WORKERS
Held:

Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.

Regular employee is engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer,
except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

“An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding

paragraph:
Provided, 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 is employed and his employment shall continue while
such activity exist.”
HACIENDA FATIMA VS NAT’L FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE WORKERS

Held:

For respondents to be excluded from those classified

as regular employees, it is not enough that they perform
work or services that are seasonal in nature. They must
have also been employed only for the duration of one
season.
 GAPAYAO VS FULO & SSS
Facts:

Jaime Fulo (deceased) died of “acute renal failure secondary to 1st degree burn 70% secondary
electrocution” while doing repairs at the residence and business establishment of petitioner.

Both parties executed a Compromise Agreement.

It was discovered that the deceased was not a registered member of the SSS.

Petitioner disclaimed any liability on the premise that the deceased was not the former’s
employee, but was rather an independent contractor whose tasks were not subject to petitioner’s
control and supervision.

Hence, petitioner was under no obligation to report the former’s demise to the SSS for social
security coverage.
 GAPAYAO VS FULO & SSS

Issue:

Whether or not private respondent is a

seasonal worker.
 GAPAYAO VS FULO & SSS
Held:

Private respondent is not a seasonal worker but a

regular employee, who is a farm worker of the petitioner.

Farm workers generally fall under the definition of

seasonal employees.

Seasonal employees may be considered as regular

employees.
 GAPAYAO VS FULO & SSS
Held:

Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from

time to time.

The nature of their relationship with the employer is such

that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but
reemployed during the summer season or when their services
may be needed.

They are in regular employment because of the nature of

their job, and not because of the length of time they have
worked.
 GAPAYAO VS FULO & SSS
Held:

Petitioner wielded control over the deceased in the

discharge of his functions. Being the owner of the farm on which
the latter worked, petitioner – on his own or through his
overseer – necessarily had the right to review the quality of work
produced by his laborers.

The right of an employee to be covered by the Social

Security Act is premised on the existence of an employer-
employee relationship.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA & CABATI VS ACIBO ET. AL.
Facts:

URSUMCO is a domestic corporation engaged in the sugar cane milling

business; Cabati is URSUMCO’s Business Unit General Manager.

They hired the complainants on various dates and on different capacities.

At the start of their respective engagements, the complainants signed

contracts of employment for a period of one (1) month or for a given
season.

URSUMCO repeatedly hired the complainants to perform the same duties

and, for every engagement, required the latter to sign new employment
contracts for the same duration of one month or a given season.
 UNIVERSAL ROBINA & CABATI VS ACIBO ET. AL.

Issue:

Whether the respondents are regular

employees of URSUMCO.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA & CABATI VS ACIBO ET. AL.
Held:

The respondents are regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO.

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for three kinds of employment
arrangements, namely: regular, project/seasonal and casual.

Regular employment refers to that arrangement whereby the employee

“has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. X X X

When the employee performs activities considered necessary and desirable to the
overall business scheme of the employer, the law regards the employee as regular.

The controlling test in this arrangement is the length of time during which the
employee is engaged.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA & CABATI VS ACIBO ET. AL.
Held:

When the “seasonal” workers are continuously and

repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks or activities for
several seasons or even after the cessation of the season,
this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular
employment.
 ARTICLE 212 (m) of the Labor Code; Policy No. 08

“Managerial employee” is one who is vested with the powers or

prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees.

Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,

effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the
use of independent judgment.

All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are
considered rank-and-file employees.
 RURAL BANK OF CANTILAN VS JULVE
Facts:

William Hotchkiss III (also a petitioner), president of petitioner bank, issued a memorandum addressed to all
its branch managers informing them of the abolition of the positions of planning and marketing officer and
remedial officer; that this was undertaken in accordance with the bank's Personnel Streamlining Program; and
that the operations officer shall absorb the functions of the abolished offices.

Hotchkiss sent Julve a memorandum stating that he has been appointed bookkeeper I at the bank's branch in
Madrid, Surigao del Sur effective immediately with the same salary corresponding to his old position.

Initially, respondent agreed to accept the appointment, but eventually, he changed his mind and
believed it was a demotion on his part.

Hotchkiss appointed respondent as bookkeeper I and assistant branch head of the Madrid branch. However,
he did not report for work.
 RURAL BANK OF CANTILAN VS JULVE

Issue:

Whether or not respondent that respondent was

constructively dismissed from employment.
 RURAL BANK OF CANTILAN VS JULVE
Held:

Under the doctrine of management prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to regulate,
according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments,
working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of
workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees.

The only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the
principles of equity and substantial justice.

While the law imposes many obligations upon the employer, nonetheless, it also protects the employer's
right to expect from its employees not only good performance, adequate work, and diligence, but also good
conduct and loyalty.

In fact, the Labor Code does not excuse employees from complying with valid company policies and
reasonable regulations for their governance and guidance.
 RURAL BANK OF CANTILAN VS JULVE
Held:

Constructive dismissal is defined as "quitting when continued

employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as the
offer of employment involves a demotion in rank and diminution of pay.“

A look at the functions of his new position shows the contrary.

The bookkeeper and assistant branch head is not only charged

with preparing financial reports and monthly bank reconciliations, he is
also the head of the Accounting Department of a branch.

Under any standard, these are supervisory and administrative

tasks which entail great responsibility.
 ECHEVARRIA VS VENUTEK MEDIKA
Facts:

Teofilo Cesar N. Echeverria was an employee of Venutek Medika, Inc., a corporation engaged in the business
of trade and distribution of hospital supplies and equipment and an affiliate of the Dispophil Group of
Companies. He held the position of assistant marketing manager.

Dispophil Group hold a joint marketing cut-off monthly meeting to review the sales and marketing
performance of the companies and discuss ways and means to improve them.

Prior to the meeting scheduled on May 2, 2002, petitioner approached Sheila and asked her if he could join
the meeting so he could give a short discussion of his vision of corporate “oneness” which he believed would
help the Dispophil Group generate sales. And he also asked Sheila if he could invite other division
heads. Finding the request reasonable, Sheila agreed to let petitioner speak after the meeting.

In the course of his discussion, it became apparent that his “vision and mission” differed from that of
respondent.
 ECHEVARRIA VS VENUTEK MEDIKA

Issue:

Whether or not that there is a substantial

evidence to support petitioner’s dismissal.
 ECHEVARRIA VS VENUTEK MEDIKA
Held:

There is substantial evidence of petitioner’s misconduct.

To justify the termination of an employee’s services, loss of trust and confidence as basis
thereof must be based on a willful breach of the trust reposed in him by his
employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice.

The rule is well entrenched that substantial proof is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any
disciplinary action upon an employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where
the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the
misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his
position.

It bears stressing that petitioner was not an ordinary rank-and-file employee. He was a
managerial employee, which required the full trust and confidence of his employer in the
exercise of discretion in overseeing respondent’s business. As such, he was bound by more
exacting work ethics.