Abasolo v. NLRC Digest

Abasolo v. NLRC 

Facts:

1.  The private respondent La Union Tobacco (Lutorco), owned by See Lun Chan is engaged in buying/processing of tobacco and its by-products. The petitioners worked in respondent company but work was interrupted when Tabacalera took over the Lutorco operations due to alleged losses. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a complaint for separation pay and dismissal. The respondent contended that it is exempt from payment of separation pay and denied that there was termination of employees' services.

2. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and held that the petitioners are not entitled to separation benefits since Lutorco ceased operations due to serious business losses. The NLRC affirmed said ruling.

Issue: W/N the petitioners are seasonal workers

RULING: No, the petitioners are considered regular and seasonal employees. They performed services necessary and indispensable to Lutorco's business. The nature of one's employment does not depend solely on the will or word of the employer nor on the procedure of hiring and manner of designating the employee but on the nature of the activity to be performed considering the employer's nature of business and the duration and scope of work to be done.

As held in previous decisions, seasonal workers are those who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are not separated from service in said period but merely considered on-leave until re-employed.

Mercado v. NLRC Digest

Mercado v. NLRC 

Facts:

1. Petitioners were agricultural workers of the private respondent's sugar land who were dismissed. They had worked in all agriculture phases for several years in the said sugar land. The respondent denied that petitioners were regular employees alleging that their services were engaged through 'mandarols' or supply workers to do a  particular phase of the agricultural work.

2. As a result, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that the petitioners were not regular employees and the NLRC affirmed this ruling. 

Issue: W/N the petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers

RULING: No, they are project/seasonal employees. A project employee is one whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion has been determined at the time of engagement, or where work or service is seasonal in nature and employment is for the duration of the season.

As such, the termination of employment cannot be considered as illegal dismissal. The petitioners are free to contract their services to work for other farm owners.