Benares vs. Pancho

Seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during the off-season are not separated from service but are merely considered on leave until re-employed, thus attaining the status of regular employees with respect to the activity they perform.

Respondents were sugar farm workers at Hacienda Maasin II, a sugar cane plantation owned and managed by petitioner Josefina Benares, with tenures ranging from 1964 to 1985. On July 24, 1991, respondents sought the intercession of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regarding wages and other mandatory benefits. Following a routine DOLE inspection on September 24, 1991, the case was endorsed to the NLRC. On October 15, 1991, respondents were allegedly terminated without being paid termination benefits, purportedly in retaliation for reporting their working conditions to the DOLE.

• Employment Status: Respondents worked as sugar farm workers in Hacienda Maasin II, a 12-24 hectare sugar cane plantation in Murcia, Negros Occidental, owned by petitioner. They performed tasks such as weeding, cutting and loading canes, planting cane points, fertilizing, and cleaning drainage. Their respective dates of engagement spanned from 1964 to 1985.
• DOLE Intervention: On July 24, 1991, respondents, through counsel, sought DOLE intercession regarding wages and benefits. A routine inspection on September 24, 1991, resulted in a recommendation that led to the endorsement of the case to the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch.
• Alleged Illegal Dismissal: On October 15, 1991, respondents claimed they were terminated without receiving termination benefits, allegedly in retaliation for reporting their working conditions to the DOLE.
• Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter: After failed amicable settlement, parties filed position papers and replies. On August 17, 1994, petitioner failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, prompting the Labor Arbiter to evaluate the records for possible resolution without formal trial. The case was deemed submitted for resolution on January 16, 1996.
• Petitioner's Evidence: Petitioner submitted "cultivo" and milling payrolls—allegedly 235 sets—to prove that respondents were merely "pakiao" workers who did not work continuously and whose tasks did not require daily presence.

• Factual Findings as Vague and Contradictory: Petitioner argued that the NLRC's factual findings were vague and contradictory, necessitating review by the appellate court, and that the NLRC should have remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter to clarify admitted "gray areas."
• Regular Employment Status: Petitioner maintained that respondents were not regular employees but mere "pakiao" workers whose intermittent tasks (weeding, cutting, fertilizing) did not require daily presence in the sugarcane fields.
• Probative Value of Evidence: Petitioner asserted that the NLRC erred in generally dismissing the submitted payrolls as unconvincing without explaining why, emphasizing that 235 sets of payroll were submitted, not just one.
• Award of Unpleaded Monetary Claims: Petitioner contended that the NLRC was overly zealous in awarding Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Emergency Relief Allowance (ERA) despite respondents failing to pray for these in their complaint.

• Procedural Defects: Respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed outright for failure to submit certified true copies of the assailed decisions and resolutions, lack of proof of service, and for raising questions of fact.
• Factual Findings Supported by Evidence: Respondents maintained that the Court of Appeals correctly relied on the NLRC's factual findings, which were supported by substantial evidence.
• Regular Seasonal Employment: Respondents insisted they were regular seasonal employees of the sugar plantation, thereby shifting the burden to the employer to prove just or authorized cause for their dismissal.
• Award of Statutory Benefits: Respondents cited Osias Academy v. DOLE to argue that the NLRC can award monetary benefits like COLA and ERA even if not specifically prayed for, as these are statutory grants intended to alleviate the laborer's plight.

• Regular Employment Status: Whether respondents are regular employees of Hacienda Maasin and thus entitled to their monetary claims.
• Validity of Dismissal: Whether respondents were illegally terminated.

• Regular Employment Status: Respondents were correctly declared regular seasonal employees. The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer. Because respondents performed tasks necessary to sugarcane production and were repeatedly rehired over several years, they attained the status of regular employees for those specific activities. The factual findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals on this point are binding, having been reached with substantial evidence.
• Validity of Dismissal: The illegal dismissal was affirmed, the employer having failed to prove any just or authorized cause for the termination. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden rests on the employer to demonstrate that the termination was for a valid reason.
• NLRC's Refusal to Remand: The NLRC's decision to resolve the case based on available documents rather than remanding it for clarificatory proceedings was a proper exercise of discretion, there being no showing of grave abuse.

• Regular Seasonal Employment — Seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during the off-season are not separated from service during the off-season period but are merely considered on leave until re-employed. Consequently, they are considered regular employees with respect to the activity they perform.
• Primary Standard for Regular Employment — The reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee vis-à-vis the usual trade or business of the employer determines regular employment. If an employee has performed a job for at least one year, even if intermittent, the repeated and continuing need for its performance suffices as evidence of the activity's necessity or indispensability to the business, rendering the employment regular with respect to that activity.
• Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal — When there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for termination, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal, and the burden falls on the employer to prove that the termination was for a just or authorized cause.

• "The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee vis-à-vis the usual trade or business of the employer."
• "Seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are not separated from service in that period, but merely considered on leave until re-employed."
• "When there is no showing of clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a just or authorized cause."

• Mercado v. NLRC, G.R. No. 79869, September 5, 1991 — Distinguished. While Mercado held that seasonal workers do not become regular employees merely by rendering at least one year of service, the factual circumstances there were peculiar because workers were engaged for a particular phase of work and were free to render services to others. In contrast, the present case involves workers repeatedly performing the same tasks every season for the same employer.
• Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, G.R. No. 149440, January 28, 2003 — Followed. Established that seasonal workers who perform the same tasks for the same employer every season for several years are considered regular employees, as they are merely on leave during the off-season.
• Osias Academy v. DOLE, 192 SCRA 612 — Cited by respondents for the proposition that the NLRC can award statutory monetary benefits (like COLA and ERA) even if not specifically prayed for in the complaint.
• Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Faburada, G.R. No. 121948, October 8, 2001 — Cited for the classification of employees into regular, project, and casual under Article 280 of the Labor Code.

• Article 280, Labor Code — Defines regular and casual employment. Applied to determine that respondents, who performed activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer's sugarcane business, are regular employees, notwithstanding the seasonal nature of their work and their intermittent service.
• Article 279, Labor Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 6715) — Governs the computation of backwages for illegally dismissed employees. Applied by the Court of Appeals to modify the NLRC decision, directing that backwages and other monetary benefits be computed from the time compensation was withheld.

Puno, C.J. (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ.