G.R. No.

186439

January 15, 2014

UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION and RENE CABATI, Petitioners,

vs.
FERDINAND ACIBO, et. al., Respondents.

Facts: The petitioner, URSUMCO, is a domestic corporation engaged in the sugar cane milling business,
while Cabati, is URSUMCOs Business Unit GM. The respondents-complainants were the employees of
URSUMCO hired on various dates and for various position such drivers, crane operators, welders,
mechanics, etc. The complainants were made to sign contracts of employment for a period of one month
or for a given season. URSUMCO repeatedly hired the complainants to perform the same duties and, for
every engagement, required the latter to sign new employment contracts for the same duration of one
month or a given season.

On August 23, 2002,9 the complainants filed before the LA complaints for regularization, entitlement to the
benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA),and attorneys fees.

The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The LA held that the complainants were seasonal or
project workers and not regular employees of URSUMCO. It held that they could not be regularized since
their respective employments were coterminous with the phase of the work or special project to which
they were assigned and which employments end upon the completion of each project. Accordingly, the
complainants were not entitled to the benefits granted under the CBA that, as provided, covered only the
regular employees of URSUMCO.

Of the 22 complainants, only 7 appealed before the NLRC which reversed the LAs decision, pointing out
that the complainants performed activities which were usually necessary and desirable in the usual trade
or business of URSUMCO, and had been repeatedly hired for the same undertaking every season.

On appeal to CA, the latter affirmed in part the NLRCs decision. The CA deleted the benefits reasoning
that the complainants did not belong to and could not be grouped together with the regular employees of
URSUMCO, for collective bargaining purposes; they constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct
from the regular employees.

Issue: Are the respondents-complainants regular employees of URSUMCO?

Ruling: Yes, the respondents are considered to be regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO. Under the
Labor Code definition of regular employees (Article 286), the primary standard that determines regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and
the usual business or trade of the employer; the emphasis is on the necessity or desirability of the
employees activity.

Thus, when the employee performs activities considered necessary and desirable to the overall business
scheme of the employer, the law regards the employee as regular. The respondents were made to
perform various tasks that did not at all pertain to any specific phase of URSUMCOs strict milling
operations that would ultimately cease upon completion of a particular phase in the milling of sugar;
rather, they were tasked to perform duties regularly and habitually needed in URSUMCOs operations
during the milling season. The respondents were also regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the same
tasks year after year. While the petitioners assert that the respondents were free to work elsewhere
during the off-season, the records do not support this assertion. There is no evidence on record showing
that after the completion of their tasks at URSUMCO, the respondents sought and obtained employment
elsewhere.

G.R. No. 195466

July 2, 2014

ARIEL L. DAVID, doing business under the name and style "YIELS HOG DEALER," Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN G. MACASIO, Respondent.

Facts: In January 2009, Macasio filed before the LA a complaint against petitioner Ariel L. David, doing
business under the name and style "Yiels Hog Dealer," for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay and
13th month pay. He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
Macasio also claimed payment for service incentive leave (SIL). Macasio alleged that he had been
working as a butcher for David since January 6, 1995. He claimed that David exercised effective control
and supervision over his work, because the latter set the work day, pays his salary daily and approved
and disapproved his leaves. Macasio added that David owned the hogs delivered for chopping, as well as
the work tools and implements; the latter also rented the workplace. Macasio further claimed that David
employs about twenty-five (25) butchers and delivery drivers. David on the other hand, disclaims the
allegations of Macasio, anchoring his argument that he was just hired on pakyaw or task basis.

The LA dismissed the complaint stating that Macasio receives a fixed amount regardless of the volume
and number of hours spent for the work. The LA added that the nature of Davids business as hog dealer
supports this "pakyaw" or task basis arrangement.

The NLRC affirmed the LAs decision since David did not require Macasio to render eight hours of work,
but rather on a non-timed work. Since Macasio was paid by result and not in terms of the time that he
spent in the workplace, Macasio is not covered by the Labor Standards laws on overtime, SIL and holiday
pay, and 13th month pay under the Rules and Regulations Implementing the 13th month pay law.

The CA, however, reverse the decision. The CA agreed with the LA and the NLRC that Macasio was a
task basis employee; it nevertheless found Macasio entitled to his monetary claims following the doctrine
laid down in Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit.

Issue: Is Macasio entitled to the benefits notwithstanding the arrangement of his employment?

Ruling: Yes, he is entitled to holiday pay and SIL but not as to the 13 th month pay.

In his petition to the SC, David posits that because he engaged Macasio on "pakyaw" or task basis then
no employer-employee relationship exists between them. However, the LA and the NLRC denied
Macasios claim not because of the absence of an employer-employee but because of its finding that
since Macasio is paid on pakyaw or task basis, then he is not entitled to SIL, holiday and 13th month pay.
We consider it crucial, that in the separate illegal dismissal case Macasio filed with the LA, the LA, the
NLRC and the CA uniformly found the existence of an employer-employee relationship. In other words,
aside from being factual in nature, the existence of an employer-employee relationship is in fact a nonissue in this case. To reiterate, in deciding a Rule 45 petition for review of a labor decision rendered by
the CA under 65, the narrow scope of inquiry is whether the CA correctly determined the presence or
absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.

With regard to the entitlement of the benefits, the Serrano ruling has settled that employees with pakyaw
or task basis arrangement are entitled to SIL. As to the entitlement of holiday pay, the decision in Serrano
that the rule exempting "field personnel" from the grant of holiday pay is identically worded with the rule
exempting "field personnel" from the grant of SIL pay. As such, he is also entitled to holiday pay. However,
as to 13th month pay, the law (P.D. 851) specifically enumerated employers of those who are paid on task
basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time
consumed in the performance thereof" are exempted from coverage without any reference as to whether
he is a field personnel or not.