ABUDA v. L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY FARMS

 

ABUDA, ET AL., VS. L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY FARMS

[GR No. 200712, July 4, 2018]

 

FACTS:

The workers of L. Natividad Poultry Farms (L. Natividad) led complaints for "illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, thirteenth month pay, and moral and exemplary damages" against it and its owner, Juliana Natividad (Juliana), and manager, Merlinda Natividad (Merlinda).

The workers claimed that L. Natividad employed and terminated their employment after several years of employment.

On May 13, 2009, Labor Arbiter Robert A. Jerez (Labor Arbiter Jerez) dismissed the complaint due to lack of employer-employee relationship between the workers and L. Natividad. He ruled that San Mateo General Services (San Mateo), Wilfredo Broñola (Broñola), and Rodolfo Del Remedios (Del Remedios) were the real employers as they were the ones who employed the workers, not L. Natividad.

The workers appealed Labor Arbiter Jerez's Decision, and on August 31, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission modified the assailed Decision. The National Labor Relations Commission found that the workers were hired as maintenance personnel by San Mateo and Del Remedios on pakyaw basis to perform specific services for L. Natividad.

On October 11, 2011, the Court of Appeals modified the National Labor Relations Commission's assailed Decision and ruled that San Mateo and Del Remedios were labor-only contractors, and as such, they must be considered as L. Natividad's agents. The Court of Appeals upheld the National Labor Relations Commission's finding that the maintenance personnel were only hired on a pakyaw basis to perform necessary repairs or construction within the farm as the need arose.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the maintenance personnel in L. Natividad Poultry Farms can be considered as its regular employees.

 

RULING

Yes, the maintenance personnel in L. Natividad Poultry Farms can be considered as its regular employees.

Both the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals found respondent L. Natividad to be petitioners' real employer, in light of the labor-only contracting arrangement between respondents, San Mateo, and petitioner Del Remedios. This Court sees no reason to disturb their findings since their findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Furthermore, a resort to the four (4)-fold test of "(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct" also strengthens the finding that respondent L. Natividad is petitioners' employer. Respondents hired petitioners directly or through petitioner Del Remedios, a supervisor at respondents' farm. They likewise paid petitioners' wages, as seen by the vouchers issued to Del Remedios and San Mateo. They also had the power of dismissal inherent in their power to select and engage their employees. Most importantly though, they controlled petitioners and their work output by maintaining an attendance sheet and by giving them specific tasks and assignments.

With an employer-employee relationship between respondent L. Natividad and petitioners duly established, the next question for resolution is whether petitioners can be considered to be regular employees. A careful review of petitioners' activity as maintenance personnel and of the entirety of respondents' business convinces this Court that they performed activities which were necessary and desirable to respondents' business of poultry and livestock production.

As maintenance personnel, petitioners performed "repair works and maintenance services such as fixing livestock and poultry houses and facilities as well as doing construction activities within the premises of [L. Natividad's] farms and other sales outlets for an uninterrupted period of three (3) to seventeen (17) years." Respondents had several farms and offices in Quezon City and Montalban, including Patiis Farm, where petitioners were regularly deployed to perform repair and maintenance work.

At first glance it may appear that maintenance personnel are not necessary to a poultry and livestock business. However, in this case, respondents kept several farms, offices, and sales outlets, meaning that they had animal houses and other related structures necessary to their business that needed constant repair and maintenance.

Being regular employees, petitioners, who were maintenance personnel, enjoyed security of tenure and the termination of their services without just cause entitles them to reinstatement and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more