Federation of Free Farmers vs.

CA

There are 4 parties in this case: a. FFF (union representingthe farmers) b.

Planters (the group which harvests the lands where the farmerswork) c. Santos
and Tikol (individual planters) d. Central or Victorias(milling corp, Planters bring
their harvest here to be milled).

The law, Sugar Act of 1952 - RA 809 stipulates that anyincrease in the share of
proceeds of milled sugarcane and derivatives obtainedby planters from the
Central, 60% of said increase should be paid by plantersto their respective
laborers.

1.

FFFalleged that they have not been paid from 1952-53 despite the 10%

increase andfrom 1953-1974 with the 4% increase. CA ruled planters and

Victorias jointlyand severally liable. FFF claimed too that Planters and Victorias
entered intoan agreement when they have no legal right because the law has
already providedthe ratio of division.
2.

Victoriasclaimed that they should not be held jointly and severally liable.

The actionfiled was not founded on torts but on either an obligation created by

acontract or by law, and even if on torts, the action has prescribed. They
havepaid the Planters so the Planters should only be the one sued.
3.

Plantersclaim they have freedom to stipulate ration as they might agree.

And that theyhave paid the laborers.

Issue: a. WON Planters and Victorias should be severallyliable

b. WON agreement bet Planters and Victorias were permissibleunder RA 809

Held: a. NO. Legal basis is that arising from law which doesnot impose upon
Centrals any liability, whether expressly or impliedly, anyjoint and several liability.
No contractbet sugar mill and the laborers. Principal liability on Planters
andsecondarily on Dept or Labor.

b. YES. RA 809 applicable only in the absence of a writtenmilling agreement or in

the absence of any stipulation on the benefits whichthe laborers are entitled.