GR No. 150478 Hacienda Bino v.
Cuenca DOCTRINE: Primary standard for determining regular
April 15, 2005 | Callejo. Sr. | Kinds of Employment - Project
PETITIONERS: Hacienda Bino (hortencia Starke, Inc.) &
Hortencia L. Starke (Hacienda’s owner/operator)
RESPONDENT: Candido Cuenca, et. al. (75 other people)
SUMMARY: Hacienda Bino is a sugar plantation at Negros
Occidental, employing 76 Respondents. During off-milling
season, Starke sent a notice that all those who did not signed
in favor of CARP are offered employment. Respondents
regarded notice as termination, & filed for illegal dismissal,
alleging they are regular workers dismissed because for
applying as beneficiaries under CARP over Starke’s land.
Starke: little work on off-season, so she issued notice giving
preference to CARP non-signatories; n milling season, she
issued notices to all informing work availability, but
respondents refused to work. SC: Respondents are regular
employees. Size of sugar hacienda (236 hectares) simply do
not allow for respondents to render work only for a definite
period. Respondents were performing work necessary &
desirable in the usual trade or business of an employer.
Hence, they can properly be classified as regular employees.
To be excluded as regular employees, they must (1)perform
work seasonal in nature, & (2) employed only for the duration
of one season. Records sufficiently show respondents' work
in the hacienda was seasonal in nature, but no proof they were
hired for the duration of one season only. Payrolls show they
availed respondents’ service since 1991 Absent any proof to
the contrary, general rule of regular employment should,
therefore, stand.
employment is the reasonable connection between the partic-
ular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual trade or business of the employer. Employee perform-
ing work necessary & desirable in the usual trade or busi-
ness of an employer can properly be classified as regular em-
ployees.
FACTS:
1. Hacienda Bino is a 236-hectare sugar plantation at Brgy
Orong, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental.
2. 76 Respondents were part of Hacienda’s workforce which
had 220 workers, performing cultivation, planting of cane
points, fertilization, watering, weeding, harvesting, & load-
ing of harvested sugarcanes to cargo trucks.
3. During off-milling season, Starke sent a notice to employees
that all those who signed in favor of CARP expressed desire
to get out of employment on their own volition, & thus of-
fered employment to only those who did not sign.
4. Respondents regarded the notice as termination, causing
them to file for illegal dismissal, alleging they are regular &
permanent workers of the hacienda dismissed because they
applied as beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) over Starke’s land.
5. Starke: Company's Board of Directors petitioned Kabanka-
lan Sangguniang Bayan for authority to re-classify, from ag-
ricultural to industrial, commercial & residential, whole
Hacienda Bino, except CARP earmarked portion. Half of
the workers supported the re-classification but the others,
which included respondents, opted to become beneficiaries
of the land under the CARP.
6. Starke: July 1996, there was little work in the plantation as
it was off-season; & so, on account of the seasonal nature of
the work, she issued the order giving preference to those
who supported the re-classification; When milling season
began in Oct 1996, work was plentiful again & she issued
notices to all workers, including respondents, informing
them of the availability of work, but respondents refused to
report back to work.
7. Starke: citing the Mercado case that respondents are sea-
sonal employees & not regular employees
8. LA: Granted. NLRC affirmed. CA Affirmed
ISSUE:
1. WON Respondents are regular employees - YES
RATIO:
1. Settled doctrine of High Court sugar workers are considered
regular & permanent farm workers of a sugar plantation
owner, the reason being that there are facts present that are
peculiar to the Mercado case.
2. Disparity in facts between Mercado case & 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, work only for a definite period for a
farm worker, after which they offer their services to other
farm owners, considering the area in question being com-
paratively small, comprising of 17.5 hectares of land, such
that the planting of rice & sugar cane thereon could not pos-
sibly entail a whole year operation.
3. Mercado case: although respondent constantly availed her-
self of petitioners' services from year to year, it was clear
from facts therein they weren’t in her regular employ. Peti-
tioners therein performed different phases of agricultural
work in a given year, during which, they were free to work
for other farm owners, & in fact they did. They were not
hired regularly & repeatedly for same phase/s of agricultural
work, but on & off for any single phase thereof.
4. No evidence that Mercado particulars are present. Sarte
didn’t present any evidence that respondents were required
to perform certain phases of agricultural work for a definite
period of time. Although Starke assert that respondents
made their services available to neighboring haciendas, re-
cords don’t support such assertion.
5. Present case: different factual condition as size enormity of
the sugar hacienda (236 hectares) simply do not allow for
respondents to render work only for a definite period.
6. Primary standard for determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity per-
formed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or
business of the employer.
7. No doubt that respondents were performing work neces-
sary & desirable in the usual trade or business of an em-
ployer. Hence, they can properly be classified as regular
employees.
8. For respondents to be excluded from those classified as reg-
ular employees, it is not enough that they perform work or
services that are seasonal in nature. They must have been
employed only for the duration of one season. Records suf-
ficiently show respondents' work in the hacienda was sea-
sonal in nature, but there was no proof they were hired for
the duration of one season only.
9. Payrolls show they availed respondents’ service since 1991
Absent any proof to the contrary, general rule of regular em-
ployment should, therefore, stand. Employer has burden of
proving the lawfulness of his employee's dismissal.