Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp., G.R. No. 159343, Sept. 28, 2007
Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp., G.R. No. 159343, Sept. 28, 2007
Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
in the cane sugar milling business. Pedy Caseres (petitioner Caseres) started
working for respondent in 1989, while Andito Pael (petitioner Pael) in 1993. At the
renewed from time to time, until May 1999 when they were informed that their
In a Decision[1] dated August 24, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the
complaint for not being substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.
dismissal,[2] and the Court of Appeals (CA)[3] dismissed the petition filed before
it.[4]
Hence, herein Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
The rule is clear that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
The LA, the NLRC and the CA are one in ruling that petitioners were not illegally
employees. Consequently, the finding of the LA, the NLRC, and the CA that
(a) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer;
(b) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or
duration of the season; and (c) casual employees or those who are neither regular
a regular employee is whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project
or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or
and the employment is for the duration of the season.[11] A true project employee
In the case at bar, We note that complainants never bothered to deny that they
voluntarily, knowingly and willfully executed the contracts of
employment. Neither was there any showing that respondents exercised moral
dominance on the complainants, x x x it is clear that the contracts of employment
are valid and binding on the complainants.
The execution of these contracts in the case at bar is necessitated by the peculiar
nature of the work in the sugar industry which has an off milling season. The very
nature of the terms and conditions of complainants' hiring reveals that they were
required to perform phases of special projects for a definite period after, their
services are available to other farm owners. This is so because the planting of
sugar does not entail a whole year operation, and utility works are comparatively
small during the off-milling season. x x x[14]
xxx
It should be stressed that contracts for project employment are valid under the
law. In Villa v. National Labor Relations Commission,[16] the Court stated that:
The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto establish that
they became regular employees. Their respective contracts with respondent show
that there were intervals in their employment. In petitioner Caseres's case, while
his employment lasted from August 1989 to May 1999, the duration of his
employment ranged from one day to several months at a time, and such successive
employments were not continuous. With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment
never lasted for more than a month at a time. These support the conclusion that
they were indeed project employees, and since their work depended on the
respondents work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to
which they were assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid. As ruled
burdensome for their employer to retain them as permanent employees and pay
Moreover, even if petitioners were repeatedly and successively re-hired, still it did
not qualify them as regular employees, as length of service is not the controlling
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, its completion has
been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. [20] Further, the
proviso in Article 280, stating that an employee who has rendered service for at
completion of the contract or phase thereof for which they have been engaged
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, p. 69.
[2]
Id. at 80.
[3]
Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion
and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring; rollo, p. 99.
[4]
Id. at 338.
[5]
Id. at 19.
[6]
The exceptions are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are
conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are
contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion. (ChuayucoSteel Manufacturing Corporation and/or Edwin Chua
v. Buklod ng Manggagawa sa Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 167347, January 31,
2007).
[7]
Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165910, April 10, 2006, SCRA 78,
100 .
[8]
Big AA Manufacturer v. Antonio, G.R. No. 160854, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 33, 42.
[9]
Rockwell Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167714, March 6, 2007; Villa v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 348 Phil. 116, 140 (1998).
[10]
Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems (Filsystems), Inc. v. Puente, G.R. No. 153832, March 18, 2005, 453
SCRA 821, 828.
[11]
Imbuido v. National Labor Relations Commission, 385 Phil. 999, 1009 (2000).
[12]
Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc. v. Chantengco, G.R. No. 156146, June 21, 2007.
[13]
Rollo, p. 68.
[14]
Id. at 79.
[15]
Id. at 334-336.
[16]
Supra note 9.
[17]
Id. at 141.
[18]
343 Phil. 213 (1997).
[19]
Abesco Construction and Development Corporation v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 141168, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 9,
14.
[20]
D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 401 Phil. 635, 641 (2000).
[21]
Fabela v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 150658, February 9, 2007.