Hacienda Bino v. Cuenca

GR No. 150478 Hacienda Bino v.
Cuenca DOCTRINE: Primary standard for determining regular

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

Hacienda Bino v. Cuenca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hacienda Bino v. Cuenca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hacienda Bino v. Cuenca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR No. 150478 Hacienda Bino v.

Cuenca DOCTRINE: Primary standard for determining regular

You might also like