SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 150478. April 15, 2005]

HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STAR E, INC./HORTENCIA !. STAR E, petitioners, vs. CANDIDO C"ENCA, #RANCISCO AC"!IT, ANGE!INA A!$ONIA, DONA!D A!%"ERTO, NIDA BANGA!ISAN, ROGE!IO CHA&E', E!$O D"!INGGIS, $ERCEDES E$%ERADO, TORIBIO E$%ERADO, ("!IANA ENCARNADO, RE)NA!DO ENCARNADO, GENE #ERNANDO, (O&EN #ERNANDO, HERNANI #ERNANDO, TERESITA #ERNANDO, BONI#ACIO GADON, (OSE GA!!ADA, RA$ONITO I!A) O, RO!ANDO I!A) O, A!#REDO !ASTI$OSO, ANTONIO !O$BO, E!IAS !O$BO, E$$A !O$BO, !A"RENCIA !O$BO, !"CIA !O$BO, (OE! $A!ACA%A), ADE!A $O(E!!O, ERNESTO $O(E!!O, #R"CTOSO $O(E!!O, (ESSICA $O(E!!O, (OSE $O(E!!O, $ARITESS $O(E!!O, $ER!ITA $O(E!!O, RO$EO $O(E!!O, RONA!DO $O(E!!O, &A!ERIANA $O(E!!O, (AI$E NE$EN'O, RODO!#O NA%AB!E, SEG"NDIA OCDEN, (ARDIO!INA %ABA!INAS, !A"RO %ABA!INAS, NO!I %ABA!INAS, R"BEN %ABA!INAS, 'A!D) %ABA!INAS, A!#REDO %ANO!INO, (OA*"IN %ED"HAN, (OHN %ED"HAN, RE)NA!DO %ED"HAN, ROGE!IO %ED"HAN, (OSE%HINE %ED"HAN, ANTONIO %ORRAS, (R., !ORNA %ORRAS, (I$$) RE)ES, A!ICIA ROBERTO, $ARCOS ROBERTO, (R., $ARIA SANGGA, RODRIGO SANGGA, ARGENE SERON, SA$"E! SERON, SR., ANGE!INO SENE!ONG, AR$ANDO SENE!ONG, DIO!ITO SENE!ONG, RE)NA!DO SENE!ONG, &ICENTE SENE!ONG, #EDERICO STA. ANA, ROGE!IO S"ASI$, EDNA TAD!AS, ART"RO TITONG, (R., (OSE TITONG, (R., NANC) &INGNO, A!$A )ANSON, (I$$) )ANSON, $)RNA &I!!AN"E&A BE!ENARIO, SA!&ADOR $A!ACA%A), +,- RA$E!O TIONGCO, respondents. DECISION
CA!!E(O, SR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review of the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA ! "ate" #ul$ %1! &''1! an" the (esolution "ate" Septe)*er &+! &''1 "en$in, the petitioners- )otion for reconsi"eration. /he assaile" "ecision )o"ifie" the "ecision of the National 0a*or (elations Co))ission (N0(C in N0(C Case No. V1''''22123. 4acien"a Bino is a &%51hectare su,ar plantation locate" at Baran,a$ Oron,! 6a*an7alan Cit$! Ne,ros Occi"ental! an" represente" in this case *$ 4ortencia 0. Star7e! owner an" operator of the sai"hacienda. /he 85 in"ivi"ual respon"ents were part of the wor7force of 4acien"a Bino consistin, of &&' wor7ers! perfor)in, various wor7s! such as cultivation! plantin, of cane points! fertili9ation! waterin,! wee"in,! harvestin,! an" loa"in, of harveste" su,arcanes to car,o truc7s.[&] On #ul$ 13! 1225! "urin, the off1)illin, season! petitioner Star7e issue" an Or"er or Notice which state"! thus:

To all Hacienda Employees: Please bear in mind that all those who signed in favor of CARP are expressing their desire to get out of employment on their own volition !herefore" beginning today" #uly $%" only those who did not sign for CARP will be given employment by Hda &ino '(gd ) Hortencia (tar*e
[%]

/he respon"ents re,ar"e" such notice as a ter)ination of their e)plo$)ent. As a conse;uence! the$ file" a co)plaint for ille,al "is)issal! wa,e "ifferentials! 1% th )onth pa$! holi"a$ pa$ an" pre)iu) pa$ for holi"a$! service incentive leave pa$! an" )oral an" e<e)plar$ "a)a,es with the N0(C! (e,ional Ar*itration Branch No. VI! Bacolo" Cit$! on Septe)*er 18! 1225.[+] In their #oint Sworn State)ent! the respon"ents as co)plainants alle,e" inter alia that the$ are re,ular an" per)anent wor7ers of the hacienda an" that the$ were "is)isse" without =ust an" lawful cause. /he$ further alle,e" that the$ were "is)isse" *ecause the$ applie" as *eneficiaries un"er the Co)prehensive A,rarian (efor) >ro,ra) (CA(> over the lan" owne" *$ petitioner Star7e. [?] @or her part! petitioner Star7e recounte" that the co)pan$-s Boar" of Directors petitione" the San,,unian, Ba$an of 6a*an7alan for authorit$ to re1classif$! fro) a,ricultural to in"ustrial! co))ercial an" resi"ential! the whole of 4acien"a Bino! e<cept the portion ear)ar7e" for the CA(>. She asserte" that half of the wor7ers supporte" the re1classification *ut the others! which inclu"e" the herein respon"ents! opte" to *eco)e *eneficiaries of the lan" un"er the CA(>. >etitioner Star7e alle,e" that in #ul$ 1225! there was little wor7 in the plantation as it was off1seasonA an" so! on account of the seasonal nature of the wor7! she issue" the or"er ,ivin, preference to those who

supporte" the re1classification. She pointe" out that when the )illin, season *e,an in Octo*er 1225! the wor7 was plentiful a,ain an" she issue" notices to all wor7ers! inclu"in, the respon"ents! infor)in, the) of the availa*ilit$ of wor7. 4owever! the respon"ents refuse" to report *ac7 to wor7. Bith respect to the respon"ents- )one$ clai)s! petitioner Star7e su*)itte" pa$rolls evi"encin, pa$)ent thereof. On Octo*er 5! 1228! 0a*or Ar*iter (a$ Allan /. Drilon ren"ere" a Decision! [5] fin"in, that petitioner Star7e-s notice "ate" #ul$ 13! 1225 was tanta)ount to a ter)ination of the respon"ents- services! an" hol"in, that the petitioner co)pan$ was ,uilt$ of ille,al "is)issal. /he "ispositive portion of the "ecision rea"s:

!HERE+,RE" premises considered" -udgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of the complainants illegal and ordering respondent Hortencia . (tar*e" /nc represented by Hortencia . (tar*e" as President" to: $ Reinstate the complainants to their former position without loss of seniority rights immediately upon receipt of this decision0 1 PA2 the bac*wages and wage differentials of the complainants" to wit: 3 in the total amount of +our Hundred 4inety5+ive Thousand Eight Hundred +ifty5Two and 617$88 'P9:;"%;1 61) Pesos0 and < T, PA2 the complainants attorney=s fee in the amount of +orty54ine Thousand +ive Hundred Eighty5+ive and 167$88 'P9:";%; 16) Pesos Respondents are further directed to deposit to this ,ffice the total -udgment award of +/>E H?4@RE@ +,RT25+/>E TH,?(A4@ A4@ +,?R H?4@RE@ TH/RT25 (E>E4 A4@ ::7$88 'P;9;"9<6 ::) PE(,( within ten '$8) days from receipt of this decision All other claims are hereby @/(A/((E@ for lac* of merit (, ,R@ERE@ [8]
Both the petitioners an" the respon"ents appeale" the case to the N0(C. On #ul$ &+! 1223! the N0(C affir)e" with )o"ification the "ecision of the 0a*or Ar*iter. /he "ispositive part of its "ecision rea"s:

WHEREFORE" premises considered" the @ecision of the .abor Arbiter is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS Respondent is further ordered to pay the complainants listed in the Holiday Pay Payroll the amounts due them

SO ORDERED [3]
A )otion for reconsi"eration of the sai" "ecision was "enie" *$ the N0(C. Dissatisfie"! the respon"ents appeale" the case to the CA where the followin, issues were raise":
[2]

A. /4E 4ONO(AB0E COCCISSION D(AVE0E ABFSED I/S DISC(E/ION AND >OBE( BE VIO0A/IND /4E DOC/(INE O@ STARE DECISIS 0AID DOBN BE /4E SF>(ECE COF(/ AND /4E A>>0ICAB0E 0ABS AS /O /4E S/A/FS O@ /4E SFDA( BO(6E(S. B. /4E 4ONO(AB0E COCCISSION COCCI//ED SE(IOFS E((O(S BE ADCI//IND /4E CO/ION /O DISCISS ANDGO( ANSBE( /O >E/I/IONE(SA>>EA0 CECO(ANDFC DA/ED CA(C4 &5! 1223 @I0ED BE COFNSE0 @O( /4E 4E(EIN (ES>ONDEN/S INS>I/E O@ /4E @AC/ /4A/ I/ BAS @I0ED BAE BEEOND /4E (ED0ECEN/A(E >E(IOD. C. /4E 4ONO(AB0E COCCISSION COCCI//ED D(AVE E((O( IN DIVIND C(EDENCE /O /4E SBEE>IND A00EDA/IONS O@ /4E COC>0AINAN/S AS /O /4E ABA(D O@ BAC6BADES AND 4O0IDAE >AE BI/4OF/ ANE BASIS.[1']

On #ul$ %1! &''1! the CA ren"ere" a Decision! [11] the "ispositive portion of which rea"s:

WHEREFORE" the decision of the 4ational .abor Relations Commission is hereby MODIFIED by deleting the award for holiday pay and premium pay for holidays The rest of the @ecision is hereby AFFIRMED SO ORDERED [1&]
/he CA rule" that the concept of stare decisis is not relevant to the present case. It hel" that the rulin, in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC[1%] "oes not operate to a*an"on the settle" "octrine that su,ar wor7ers are consi"ere" re,ular an" per)anent far) wor7ers of a su,ar plantation owner! consi"erin, that there are facts peculiar in that case which are not present in the case at *ar. In the Mercado case! the far) la*orers wor7e" onl$ for a "efinite perio" for a far) owner since the area of the lan" was co)parativel$ s)all! after which the$ offer their services to other far) owners. In this case! the area of the hacienda! which is &%5 hectares! si)pl$ "oes not allow for the respon"ents to wor7 for a "efinite perio" onl$. /he CA also hel" that the petitioners- reliance on Bacolod-M rcia Millin! Co. Inc. v. NLRC[1+] was )isplace"! as it in fact! *olstere" the respon"entsH posture that the$ are re,ular e)plo$ees. In that case! the Court hel" that a su,ar wor7er )a$ *e consi"ere" as in re,ular e)plo$)ent even "urin, those $ears when he is )erel$ a seasonal wor7er where the issues concern the "eter)ination of an e)plo$er1e)plo$ee relationship an" securit$ of tenure. @urther! the CA hel" that the respon"ents- appeal to the N0(C was not perfecte" since the$ faile" to acco)pan$ their notice of appeal with a )e)oran"u) of appeal! or to ti)el$ file a )e)oran"u) of appeal. /hus! as to the)! the "ecision of the 0a*or

Ar*iter *eca)e final an" e<ecutor$. /he N0(C! therefore! ,ravel$ a*use" its "iscretion when it )o"ifie" the "ecision of the 0a*or Ar*iter an" awar"e" to the respon"ents holi"a$ pa$ an" pre)iu) for holi"a$ pa$. @inall$! the CA affir)e" the awar" of *ac7wa,es! fin"in, no circu)stance that woul" warrant a reversal of the fin"in,s of the 0a*or Ar*iter an" N0(C on this point. [1?] On Septe)*er &+! &''1! the CA "enie" the )otion for reconsi"eration file" *$ the petitioners "ue to their failure to in"icate the "ate of the receipt of the "ecision to "eter)ine the ti)eliness of the )otion.[15] 4ence! this petition for review. /he petitioners su*)it the followin, issues:
A. B4E/4E( O( NO/ /4E 4ONO(AB0E COF(/ O@ A>>EA0S D(AVE0E ABFSED I/S DISC(E/ION AND >OBE( BE VIO0A/IND /4E DOC/(INE O@ ISTARE DECISISI 0AID DOBN BE /4E SF>(ECE COF(/ AND /4E A>>0ICAB0E 0ABS AS /O /4E S/A/FS O@ /4E SFDA( BO(6E(S. B. B4E/4E( O( NO/ /4E 4ONO(AB0E COF(/ O@ A>>EA0S D(AVE0E E((ED IN DISCISSIND /4E CO/ION @O( (ECONSIDE(A/ION @O( @AI0F(E /O S/A/E /4E DA/E O@ /4E (ECEI>/ O@ /4E DECISION IN /4E CO/ION @O( (ECONSIDE(A/ION.[18]

>etitioner Star7e conten"s that the esta*lishe" "octrine that seasonal e)plo$ees are re,ular e)plo$ees ha" *een overturne" an" a*an"one" *$ Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC. [13] She stresses that in that case! the Court hel" that petitioners therein who were su,ar wor7ers! are seasonal e)plo$ees an" their e)plo$)ent le,all$ en"s upon co)pletion of the pro=ect or the season. >etitioner Star7e ar,ues that the CA violate" the "octrine of stare decisis in not appl$in, the sai" rulin,. She asserts that the respon"ents! who are also su,ar wor7ers! are seasonal e)plo$eesA hence! their e)plo$)ent can *e ter)inate" at the en" of the season an" such ter)ination cannot *e consi"ere" an ille,al "is)issal. >etitioner Star7e )aintains that the "eter)ination of whether the wor7ers are re,ular or seasonal e)plo$ees is not "epen"ent on the nu)*er of hectares operate" upon *$ the)! or the nu)*er of wor7ers! or the capitali9ation involve"! *ut rather! in the nature of the wor7. She asserts that the respon"ents also )a"e their services availa*le to the nei,h*orin, haciendas. /o *uttress her contention that the respon"ents are seasonal e)plo$ees! petitioner Star7e cites (ep. Act 523&! An Act Stren,thenin, the Social A)elioration >ro,ra) in the Su,ar In"ustr$! >rovi"in, the Cechanics for its I)ple)entation! an" for other >urposes! which reco,ni9es the seasonal nature of the wor7 in the su,ar in"ustr$. [12] >etitioner Star7e also ta7es e<ception to the "enial of her )otion for reconsi"eration "ue to failure to state the "ate of the receipt of the "ecision. She asserts that a "enial of a )otion for reconsi"eration "ue to such cause is )erel$ "irector$ an" not )an"ator$ on the part of the CA. Consi"erin, that the a)ount involve" in this case an" the fact that the )otion was file" within the re,le)entar$ perio"! the CA shoul" have consi"ere" the )otion for reconsi"eration "espite such proce"ural lapse. [&'] On the other han"! the respon"ents aver that the petitioners erroneousl$ invo7e the "octrine of stare decisis since the factual *ac7"rop of this case an" the Mercado case is

not si)ilar. /he respon"ents posit that the Mercado case rule" on the status of e)plo$)ent of far) la*orers who wor7 onl$ for a "efinite perio" of ti)e for a far) owner! after which the$ offer their services to other far) owners. Contraril$! the respon"ents conten" that the$ "o not wor7 for a "efinite perio" *ut throu,hout the whole $ear! an" "o not )a7e their services availa*le to other far) owners. Coreover! the lan" involve" in the Mercado case is co)parativel$ s)aller than the su,ar lan" involve" in this case. /he respon"ents insist that the vastness of the lan" involve" in this case re;uires the wor7ers to wor7 on a $ear1roun" *asis! an" not on an Jon1an"1offK *asis li7e the far) wor7ers in the Mercado case. @inall$! the respon"ents )aintain that the re;uire)ent that the "ate of receipt of the "ecision shoul" *e in"icate" in the )otion for reconsi"eration is )an"ator$ an" =uris"ictional an"! if not co)plie" with! the court )ust "en$ the )otion outri,ht. [&1] /he petition is without )erit. On the su*stantial issue of whether the respon"ents are re,ular or seasonal e)plo$ees! the petitioners conten" that the CA violate" the "octrine of stare decisis *$ not appl$in, the rulin, in the Mercado case that su,ar wor7ers are seasonal e)plo$ees. Be hol" otherwise. Fn"er the "octrine of stare decisis! when a court has lai" "own a principle of law as applica*le to a certain state of facts! it will a"here to that principle an" appl$ it to all future cases in which the facts are su*stantiall$ the sa)e. [&&] Bhere the facts are essentiall$ "ifferent! however! stare decisis "oes not appl$! for a perfectl$ soun" principle as applie" to one set of facts )i,ht *e entirel$ inappropriate when a factual variance is intro"uce".[&%] /he CA correctl$ foun" that the facts involve" in this case are "ifferent fro) the Mercado caseA therefore! the rulin, in that case cannot *e applie" to the case at *ar! thus:

!e do not find the concept of stare decisis relevant in the case at bench +or although in the Aercado case" the (upreme Court held the petitioners who were sugar wor*ers not to be regular but seasonal wor*ers" nevertheless" the same does not operate to abandon the settled doctrine of the High Court that sugar wor*ers are considered regular and permanent farm wor*ers of a sugar plantation owner" the reason being that there are facts present that are peculiar to the Aercado case The disparity in facts between the Aercado case and the instant case is best exemplified by the fact that the former decision ruled on the status of employment of farm laborers" who" as found by the labor arbiter" wor* only for a definite period for a farm wor*er" after which they offer their services to other farm owners" considering the area in Buestion being comparatively small" comprising of seventeen and a half '$6C) hectares of land" such that the planting of rice and sugar cane thereon could not possibly entail a whole year operation The herein case presents a different factual condition as the enormity of the siDe of the sugar hacienda of petitioner" with an area of two hundred thirty5six '1<E) hectares" simply do not allow for private respondents to render wor* only for a definite period

In"ee"! in a nu)*er of cases! the Court has reco,ni9e" the peculiar facts atten"ant in the Mercado case. In A"asolo v. NLRC![&+] an" earlier! in #hili$$ine To"acco %l eC rin! & Redr'in! Cor$oration v. NLRC![&?] the Court )a"e the followin, o*servations:

3 /n Mercado" although respondent constantly availed herself of the petitionersF services from year to year" it was clear from the facts therein that they were not in her regular employ Petitioners therein performed different phases of agricultural wor* in a given year However" during that period" they were free to wor* for other farm owners" and in fact they did /n other words" they wor*ed for respondent" but were nevertheless free to contract their services with other farm owners The Court was thus emphatic when it ruled that petitioners were mere pro-ect employees" who could be hired by other farm owners3 [&5]
(ecentl$! the Court reiterate" the sa)e o*servations in (acienda %ati)a v. National %ederation o* S !arcane +or,ers-%ood and -eneral Trade [&8] an" a""e" that the petitioners in the Mercado case were Jnot hire" re,ularl$ an" repeate"l$ for the sa)e phaseGs of a,ricultural wor7! *ut on an" off for an$ sin,le phase thereof.K In this case! there is no evi"ence on recor" that the sa)e particulars are present. /he petitioners "i" not present an$ evi"ence that the respon"ents were re;uire" to perfor) certain phases of a,ricultural wor7 for a "efinite perio" of ti)e. Althou,h the petitioners assert that the respon"ents )a"e their services availa*le to the nei,h*orin, haciendas! the recor"s "o not! however! support such assertion. /he pri)ar$ stan"ar" for "eter)inin, re,ular e)plo$)ent is the reasona*le connection *etween the particular activit$ perfor)e" *$ the e)plo$ee in relation to the usual tra"e or *usiness of the e)plo$er. [&3]/here is no "ou*t that the respon"ents were perfor)in, wor7 necessar$ an" "esira*le in the usual tra"e or *usiness of an e)plo$er. 4ence! the$ can properl$ *e classifie" as re,ular e)plo$ees. @or respon"ents to *e e<clu"e" fro) those classifie" as re,ular e)plo$ees! it is not enou,h that the$ perfor) wor7 or services that are seasonal in nature. /he$ )ust have *een e)plo$e" onl' *or the d ration o* one season .[&2] Bhile the recor"s sufficientl$ show that the respon"ents- wor7 in the hacienda was seasonal in nature! there was! however! no proof that the$ were hire" for the "uration of one season onl$. In fact! the pa$rolls![%'] su*)itte" in evi"ence *$ the petitioners! show that the$ availe" the services of the respon"ents since 1221. A*sent an$ proof to the contrar$! the ,eneral rule of re,ular e)plo$)ent shoul"! therefore! stan". It *ears stressin, that the e)plo$er has the *ur"en of provin, the lawfulness of his e)plo$ee-s "is)issal. [%1] On the proce"ural issue! petitioner Star7e avers that the CA shoul" not have "enie" outri,ht her )otion for reconsi"eration! consi"erin, its ti)el$ filin, an" the hu,e a)ount involve". /his contention is alrea"$ )oot. >etitioner Star7e has alrea"$ aire" in this petition the ar,u)ents in her )otion for reconsi"eration of the CA "ecision! which have *een a"e;uatel$ a""resse" *$ this Court. Assu)in, ar! endo that the CA in"ee" faile" to consi"er the )otion for reconsi"eration! petitioner Star7e was not left without an$ other recourse.[%&]

IN !IGHT O# A!! THE #OREGOING! the petition is DENIED. /he Decision of the Court of Appeals! "ate" #ul$ %1! &''1! an" its (esolution "ate" Septe)*er &+! &''1 are here*$ A@@I(CED. SO ORDERED. # no, .Chair)an/, A stria-Martine0, Tin!a, an" Chico-Na0ario, 11., concur.

[1]

>enne" *$ Associate #ustice (o)eo A. Brawner (now >resi"in, #ustice of the Court of Appeals ! with Associate #ustices (e)e"ios Sala9ar1@ernan"o an" (e*ecca "e Duia1Salva"or! concurrin,. Rollo, p. 1'&. CA Rollo, p. +%. Rollo! p. 1'%. Id. at %5. Id. at %?1?1. Id. at +21?1. CA Rollo! p. +8. Id. at ?51?3. Id. at ?. Rollo! pp. 121&3. Id. at &81&3. D.(. No. 82352! ? Septe)*er 1221! &'1 SC(A %%&. D.(. No. 3+&8&! &1 Nove)*er 1221! &'+ SC(A 1??. Rollo, pp. &?1&8. Id. at %+. Id. at 5. S $ra. Rollo, pp. 38125. Id. at 1+115. Rollo! pp. 1'?11'3. 2illena v. Chave0! D.(. No. 1+31&5! 1' Nove)*er &''%! +1? SC(A %%. Lee v. Ins rance Co)$an' o* North A)erica! 8' 4aw. 1&'! 85% >.&" ?58 (1233 . D.(. No. 113+8?! &2 Nove)*er &'''! %+5 SC(A &2%. D.(. No. 1&8%2?! 1' Dece)*er 1223! %'' SC(A %8. Id. at 51. D.(. No. 1+2++'! &3 #anuar$ &''%! %25 SC(A ?13.

[&] [%] [+] [?] [5] [8] [3] [2]

[1'] [11] [1&] [1%] [1+] [1?] [15] [18] [13] [12] [&'] [&1] [&&] [&%] [&+] [&?] [&5] [&8]

[&3] [&2] [%'] [%1] [%&]

Tan v. La!ra)a! D.(. No. 1?1&&3! 1? Au,ust &''&! %38 SC(A %2%. (acienda %ati)a v. National %ederation o* S !arcane +or,ers-%ood and -eneral Trade, s $ra. CA Rollo! pp. ?315'. Tan v. La!ra)a! s $ra. See 2er!ara v. National La"or Relations Co))ission ! D.(. No. 118125! ? Dece)*er 1228! &3& SC(A +35.