SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 151827. April 29, 2005]

JOSEFINA BENARES, petitioner, vs. JAIME PANCO, RO!O"FO
PANCO, JR., JOSE"I#O ME!A""A, PA$%I#O MAGA""ANES,
A"ICIA MAGA""ANES, E&E"'N MAGA""ANES, &IO"E#A
&I""ACAMPA, MARI#ESS PANCO, ROGE"IO PANCO AN!
ARNO"FO PANCO, respondents.
! E C I S I O N
#INGA, J.(
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari
[1]
is the Decision
[2]
of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the National a!or "elations Commission#s $N"C%
decision
[&]
holdin' that respondents were ille'all( dismissed and orderin' petitioner to
pa( respondents separation pa() !ac*wa'es) 1&
th
month pa() Cost of i+in' Allowance
$COA%) emer'enc( relief allowance $E"A%) salar( differentials and attorne(#s fees, -he
N"C re+ersed the a!or Ar!iter#s findin' that respondents failed to la( down the facts
and circumstances surroundin' their dismissal and to pro+e their entitlement to
monetar( awards,
[.]
-he antecedents) as narrated !( the N"C) follow,
Complainants alleged to have started working as sugar farm workers on various dates,
to wit:
1. Jaime Pancho November 15, 1!"
#. $odolfo Pancho, Jr. %ebruar& 1, 1'5
(. Joselito )edalla November 15, 1!"
". Pa*uito )agallanes )arch 1+, 1'(
5. %elomino )agallanes November 15, 1!"
!. ,licia )agallanes Januar& 15, 1!"
'. -vel&n )agallanes Januar& 1, 1'"
.. /ioleta /illacampa 0ecember 1, 1'
. )aritess Pancho 0ecember 15, 1.5
1+. $ogelio Pancho 0ecember 1, 1'
11. ,rnolfo Pancho %ebruar& 1, 1'5
$espondent 1da. )aasin 22 is a sugar cane plantation located in )urcia, Negros
3ccidental with an area of 1#4#" has. planted, owned and managed b& Josefina
5enares, individual co4respondent.
3n Jul& #", 11, complainants thru counsel wrote the $egional 0irector of the
0epartment of 6abor and -mplo&ment, 5acolod Cit& for intercession particularl& in
the matter of wages and other benefits mandated b& law.
3n 7eptember #", 11, a routine inspection was conducted b& personnel of the
5acolod 0istrict 3ffice of the 0epartment of 6abor and -mplo&ment. ,ccordingl&, a
report and recommendation was made, hence, the endorsement b& the $egional
0irector of the instant case to the $egional ,rbitration 5ranch, N6$C, 5acolod Cit&
for proper hearing and disposition.
3n 3ctober 15, 11, complainants alleged to have been terminated without being
paid termination benefits b& respondent in retaliation to what the& have done in
reporting to the 0epartment of 6abor and -mplo&ment their working conditions vi84a4
vi8 9sic: wages and other mandator& benefits.
3n Jul& 1", 1#, notification and summons were served to the parties wherein
complainants were directed to file a formal complaint.
3n Jul& #., 1#, a formal complaint was filed for illegal dismissal with mone&
claims.
%rom the records, summons and notices of hearing were served to the parties and
apparentl& no amicable settlement was arrived, hence, the parties were directed to file
their respective position papers.
3n Januar& ##, 1(, complainant submitted their position paper, while respondent
filed its position paper on June #1, 1(.
3n )arch 1', 1", complainants filed their repl& position paper and affidavit.
Correspondingl&, a re;oinder was filed b& respondent on )a& 1!, 1".
3n ,ugust 1', 1", from the )inutes of the scheduled hearing, respondent failed to
appear, and that the 3ffice will evaluate the records of the case whether to conduct a
formal trial on the merits or not, and that the corresponding order will be issued.
3n Januar& 1!, 1!, the 6abor ,rbiter issued an order to the effect that the case is
now deemed submitted for resolution.
3n ,pril (+, 1., the 6abor ,rbiter a *uo issued the assailed decision dismissing the
complaint for lack of merit.
3n June #!, 1., complainants not satisfied with the aforecited ruling interposed the
instant appeal anchored on the ground that:
<1- 13N3$,56- 6,53$ ,$52<-$ =$,/-6> ,5?7-0 2<7 027C$-<23N
,N0 7-$23?76> -$$-0 2N 13602N= <1,< <1- C3)P6,2N,N<7 %,26-0
<3 027C?77 <1- %,C<7 ,N0 C2$C?)7<,NC-7 7?$$3?N02N= <1-2$
027)277,6, 1-NC-, <1-$- 27 N3 027)277,6 <3 7P-,@ 3% ,N0 <1,<
C3)P6,2N,N<7 %,26-0 <3 ,66-=- ,N0 P$3/- <1,< <1-2$ C6,2)7
,$- /,620, 1-NC- <1- 027)277,6 3% <1-2$ C3)P6,2N< A3?60
C,?7- =$,/- ,N0 2$$-P,$,56- 0,),=- <3 1-$-2N
C3)P6,2N,N<7.
[/]
-he N"C held that respondents attained the status of re'ular seasonal wor*ers of
0da, 1aasin II ha+in' wor*ed therein from 123.4125/, It found that petitioner failed to
dischar'e the !urden of pro+in' that the termination of respondents was for a 6ust or
authori7ed cause, 0ence) respondents were ille'all( dismissed and should !e awarded
their mone( claims,
8etitioner#s motion for reconsideration
[3]
dated 1a( 12) 1222 was denied in the
resolution
[9]
dated Octo!er 22) 1222,
-he Court of Appeals affirmed the N"C#s rulin') with the modification that the
!ac*wa'es and other monetar( !enefits shall !e computed from the time compensation
was withheld in accordance with Article 292 of the a!or Code) as amended !(
"epu!lic Act No, 391/,
In its Resolution
[5]
dated No+em!er 25) 2::1) the appellate court denied petitioner#s
motion for reconsideration for lac* of merit,
8etitioner is now !efore this Court a+errin' that the Court of Appeals erred in
affirmin' the decision of the N"C, ;hile petitioner concedes that the factual findin's
of the N"C are 'enerall( !indin' on the appellate court) petitioner insists that the
findin's of the N"C are +a'ue and contradictor() there!( necessitatin' re+iew,
Accordin' to petitioner) the fact that she was a!le to present sufficient proof to re!ut
the claim of ille'al dismissal should !e considered in li'ht of the N"C#s admission that
there are 'ra( areas in the case which re<uire clarification, 8etitioner a+ers that the
N"C should ha+e at least remanded the case to the la!or ar!iter to thresh out these
'ra( areas, She further claims that the N"C was o+erl( 7ealous in awardin' COA
and E"A despite the fact that respondents did not e+en pra( for these awards in their
complaint, She also <uestions the N"C#s 'eneral statement to the effect that the
pa(roll she su!mitted is not con+incin' assertin' that she su!mitted 2&/ sets of pa(roll)
not 6ust one) and that the N"C did not e+en !other to e=plain wh( it found the pa(roll
uncon+incin',
"espondents filed a Comment
[2]
dated 1a( 1:) 2::2 alle'in' that petitioner failed to
su!mit certified true copies of the assailed decisions and resolutions) and that the
petition lac*s proof of ser+ice and raises <uestions of fact,
In her Reply to Comment
[1:]
dated Septem!er 19) 2::2) petitioner points out that the
"ules of Court do not re<uire that all copies of the petition contain certified true copies
of the <uestioned decisions and resolutions, >urther) all copies of the petition filed with
the Court contain an affida+it of ser+ice, "espondents# cop( does not ha+e an affida+it
of ser+ice !ecause the sworn declaration can not !e e=ecuted !efore ser+ice of the
petition is actuall( made, 8etitioner also maintains that the rule on re+iew of findin's of
fact !( the Supreme Court admits of certain e=ceptions such as when the conclusions
arri+ed at are 'rounded entirel( on speculation) surmises and con6ectures as in this
case,
-he petition was 'i+en due course and the parties were re<uired to su!mit their
respecti+e memoranda in the Resolution
[11]
dated 1arch &) 2::&, 8etitioner filed
a Manifestation and Compliance
[12]
dated April 22) 2::& adoptin' the alle'ations in
her Petition for Review on Certiorari and Reply to Comment as her memorandum, >or
their part) respondents filed a Memoranda For Private Respondents
[1&]
dated 1a( 9)
2::& alle'in' that the Court of Appeals correctl( relied upon the factual findin's of the
N"C after ha+in' found the same to !e supported !( su!stantial e+idence, -he( insist
that the( are re'ular seasonal emplo(ees of the su'ar plantation, As such) petitioner
has the !urden of pro+in' that their dismissal was for a 6ust or authori7ed cause,
As re'ards the contention that the N"C erroneousl( awarded COA and E"A)
respondents cite Osias Academy v. DOLE,
[1.]
which pro+ides that the N"C can e=tend
monetar( awards e+en if these are not pra(ed for if the monetar( !enefits are statutor(
'rants intended to alle+iate the la!orer#s pli'ht li*e the COA and E"A,
-he main <uestion raised !( the present petition is whether respondents are re'ular
emplo(ees of 0acienda 1aasin and thus entitled to their monetar( claims, "elated to
this is the issue of whether respondents were ille'all( terminated,
-his case presents a 'ood opportunit( to reiterate the Court#s rulin's on the su!6ect
of seasonal emplo(ment, -he a!or Code defines re'ular and casual emplo(ment) vi?
,rt. #.+. REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.B<he provisions of written
agreement to the contrar& notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the
parties, an emplo&ment shall be deemed to be regular where the emplo&ee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usuall& necessar& or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the emplo&er, eCcept where the emplo&ment has been fiCed for a
specific pro;ect or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the emplo&ee or where the work or
service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the emplo&ment is for the duration
of the season.
,n emplo&ment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered b& the preceding
paragraph: Provided, <hat, an& emplo&ee who has rendered at least one &ear of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular
emplo&ee with respect to the activit& in which he is emplo&ed and his emplo&ment
shall continue while such activit& eCists.
-he law pro+ides for three *inds of emplo(ees? $1% re'ular emplo(ees or those who
ha+e !een en'a'ed to perform acti+ities which are usuall( necessar( or desira!le in the
usual !usiness or trade of the emplo(er@ $2% pro6ect emplo(ees or those whose
emplo(ment has !een fi=ed for a specific pro6ect or underta*in') the completion or
termination of which has !een determined at the time of the en'a'ement of the
emplo(ee or where the wor* or ser+ice to !e performed is seasonal in nature and the
emplo(ment is for the duration of the season@ and $&% casual emplo(ees or those who
are neither re'ular nor pro6ect emplo(ees,
[1/]
In Mercado v. !LRC)
[13]
the Court ruled that seasonal wor*ers do not !ecome re'ular
emplo(ees !( the mere fact that the( ha+e rendered at least one (ear of ser+ice)
whether continuous or !ro*en) !ecause the pro+iso in the second para'raph of Article
25: demarcates as AcasualB emplo(ees) all other emplo(ees who do not fall under the
definition of the precedin' para'raph, It deems as re'ular emplo(ees those AcasualB
emplo(ees who ha+e rendered at least one (ear of ser+ice re'ardless of the fact that
such ser+ice ma( !e continuous or !ro*en,
-he factual circumstances o!tainin' in the Mercado case) howe+er) are peculiar, In
that case) the wor*ers were en'a'ed to do a particular phase of a'ricultural wor*
necessar( for rice andCor su'arcane production) after which the( would !e free to
render ser+ices to other farm wor*ers who need their ser+ices,
In contrast) in the case of "acienda Fatima v. !ational Federation of #u$arcane
%or&ers'Food and (eneral )rade)
[19]
respondents performed the same tas*s for
petitioners e+er( season for se+eral (ears, -hus) the( were considered the latter#s
re'ular emplo(ees for their respecti+e tas*s, -he fact that the( do not wor*
continuousl( for one whole (ear !ut onl( for the duration of the season does not detract
from considerin' them in re'ular emplo(ment since in a litan( of cases this Court has
alread( settled that seasonal wor*ers who are called to wor* from time to time and are
temporaril( laid off durin' off4season are not separated from ser+ice in that period) !ut
merel( considered on lea+e until re4emplo(ed,
[15]
Citin' 6urisprudence) the Court) in "acienda Fatima) condensed the rule that the
primar( standard for determinin' re'ular emplo(ment is the reasona!le connection
!etween the particular acti+it( performed !( the emplo(ee vis'*'vis the usual trade or
!usiness of the emplo(er, -his connection can !e determined !( considerin' the nature
of the wor* performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular !usiness or trade
in its entiret(, If the emplo(ee has !een performin' the 6o! for at least a (ear) e+en if the
performance is not continuous and merel( intermittent) the law deems repeated and
continuin' need for its performance as sufficient e+idence of the necessit( if not
indispensa!ilit( of that acti+it( to the !usiness, 0ence) the emplo(ment is considered
re'ular) !ut onl( with respect to such acti+it( and while such acti+it( e=ists,
[12]
In this case) petitioner ar'ues that respondents were not her re'ular emplo(ees as
the( were merel( Apa*iaoB wor*ers who did not wor* continuousl( in the su'ar
plantation, -he( performed such tas*s as weedin') cuttin' and loadin' canes) plantin'
cane points) fertili7in') cleanin' the draina'e) etc, -hese functions alle'edl( do not
re<uire respondents# dail( presence in the su'arcane field as it is not e+er(da( that one
weeds) cuts canes or applies fertili7er, In support of her alle'ations) petitioner
su!mitted Aculti+oB and millin' pa(rolls,
-he pro!ati+e +alue of petitioner#s e+idence) howe+er) has !een passed upon !(
the la!or ar!iter) the N"C and the Court of Appeals, Althou'h the la!or ar!iter
dismissed respondents# complaint !ecause their Aposition paper is completel( de+oid of
an( discussion a!out their alle'ed dismissal) much less of the pro!ati+e facts
thereof)B
[2:]
the 'round for the dismissal of the complaint implies a findin' that
respondents are re'ular emplo(ees,
-he N"C was more une<ui+ocal when it pronounced that respondents ha+e
ac<uired the status of re'ular seasonal emplo(ees ha+in' wor*ed for more than one
(ear) whether continuous or !ro*en in petitioner#s hacienda,
Accordin' to petitioner) howe+er) the N"C#s conclusion is hi'hl( suspect
considerin' its own admission that there are A'ra( areas which re<uires $sic%
clarification,B She alle'es that despite these 'ra( areas) the N"C Achose not to
remand the case to the a!or Ar!iterD,as this would undul( prolon' the a'on( of the
complainants in particular,B
[21]
8etitioner perhaps wittin'l( omitted mention that the N"C Aopted to appreciate the
merits of the instant case !ased on a+aila!le documentsCpleadin's,B
[22]
-hat the N"C
chose not to remand the case to the la!or ar!iter for clarificator( proceedin's and
instead decided the case on the !asis of the e+idence then a+aila!le to it is a 6ud'ment
call this Court shall not interfere with in the a!sence of an( showin' that the N"C
a!used its discretion in so doin',
-he Court of Appeals) in fact) found no such 'ra+e a!use of discretion on the part of
the N"C, Accordin'l() it dismissed the petition for certiorari and affirmed with
modification the findin's of the N"C, It is well to note at this point that in <uasi46udicial
proceedin's) the <uantum of e+idence re<uired to support the findin's of the N"C is
onl( su!stantial e+idence or that amount of rele+ant e+idence which a reasona!le mind
mi'ht accept as ade<uate to 6ustif( a conclusion,
[2&]
-he issue) therefore) of whether respondents were re'ular emplo(ees of petitioner
has !een ade<uatel( dealt with, -he la!or ar!iter) the N"C and the Court of Appeals
ha+e similarl( held that respondents were re'ular emplo(ees of petitioner, Since it is a
settled rule that the factual findin's of <uasi46udicial a'encies which ha+e ac<uired
e=pertise in the matters entrusted to their 6urisdiction are accorded !( this Court not onl(
respect !ut e+en finalit()
[2.]
we shall no lon'er distur! this findin',
8etitioner ne=t underscores the N"C decision#s mention of the Apa(rollB she
presented despite the fact that she alle'edl( presented 2&/ sets of pa(roll) not 6ust one
pa(roll, -his circumstance does not in itself e+ince an( 'ra+e a!use of discretion on the
part of the N"C as it could well ha+e !een 6ust an innocuous t(po'raphical error,
Veril() the N"C#s decision) affirmed as it was !( the Court of Appeals) appears to
ha+e !een arri+ed at after due consideration of the e+idence presented !( !oth parties,
;e also find no reason to distur! the findin' that respondents were ille'all(
terminated, ;hen there is no showin' of clear) +alid and le'al cause for the termination
of emplo(ment) the law considers the matter a case of ille'al dismissal and the !urden
is on the emplo(er to pro+e that the termination was for a 6ust or authori7ed cause,
[2/]
In
this case) as found !oth !( the N"C and the Court of Appeals) petitioner failed to
pro+e an( such cause for the dismissal of respondents,
)EREFORE) the instant petition is DENIED, -he assailed Decision and
"esolution of the Court of Appeals respecti+el( dated Eune 22) 2::1 and No+em!er 25)
2::1 are here!( A>>I"1ED, Costs a'ainst petitioner,
SO OR!ERE!.
Puno, +C,airman-, Austria'Martine, Calle.o, #r., and C,ico'!aario, //., concur,
[1]
"ollo) pp, /415, Dated Eanuar( 1.) 2::2,
[2]
0d. at 2&422, 8enned !( Associate Eustice Conchita Carpio 1orales $now Associate Eustice of this
Court% and concurred in !( Associate Eustices Candido V, "i+era and "e!ecca De Fuia4
Sal+ador,
[&]
"ecords) pp, 2.&42/2,
[.]
0d. at 2:&42:3,
[/]
0d. at 2.&42.3,
[3]
0d. at 2/&42/5,
[9]
0d. at 292429&,
[5]
#upra note 1 at &24&&,
[2]
0d. at 5.45/,
[1:]
0d. at 52422,
[11]
0d. at 2/
[12]
0d. at 23429,
[1&]
0d. at 224111,
[1.]
122 SC"A 312,
[1/]
8erpetual 0elp Credit Cooperati+e) Inc, +, >a!urada) F,", No, 1212.5) Octo!er 5) 2::1) &33 SC"A
32&) 32249::,
[13]
F,", No, 92532) Septem!er /) 1221) 2:1 SC"A &&2,
[19]
F,", No, 1.2..:) Eanuar( 25) 2::&) &23 SC"A /15,
[15]
01id, citin$ A!asolo +, N"C) &.3 SC"A 22&) No+em!er 22) 2:::,
[12]
01id.
[2:]
#upra note & at 2:/,
[21]
#upra note & at 2.9,
[22]
01id.
[2&]
Sec, /) "ule 1&&) "ules of Court,
[2.]
>al'uera +, insan'an) F,", No, 115..5) Decem!er 1.) 122/) 2/1 SC"A &3.,
[2/]
#upra note 19,