Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Seasonal Employment Case Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not regular employees of the private respondents and thus not entitled to dismissal benefits. The petitioners alleged they worked on the respondents' farms for many years as agricultural workers. However, the respondents claimed the petitioners were hired through "mandarols" to work on specific agricultural phases, making them project/seasonal employees. As seasonal workers whose employment was fixed for a particular season or project, their jobs ended legally upon completion of the work and they could not claim illegal dismissal benefits. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of the respondents.

Uploaded by

Charelle Sy-Serrano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Seasonal Employment Case Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not regular employees of the private respondents and thus not entitled to dismissal benefits. The petitioners alleged they worked on the respondents' farms for many years as agricultural workers. However, the respondents claimed the petitioners were hired through "mandarols" to work on specific agricultural phases, making them project/seasonal employees. As seasonal workers whose employment was fixed for a particular season or project, their jobs ended legally upon completion of the work and they could not claim illegal dismissal benefits. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of the respondents.

Uploaded by

Charelle Sy-Serrano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Mercado, Sr. v.

NLRC
G.R. No. 79869. September 5, 1991

Facts
 Petitioners alleged they were agricultural workers utilized by private respondents in all the
agricultural phases of work on the 7 1/2 hectares of rice land and 10 hectares of sugar land
owned by the latter; that Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Leon Santillan worked in the farm of
private respondents since 1949, Fortunato Mercado, Jr. and Antonio Mercado since 1972 and
the rest of the petitioners since 1960 up to April 1979, when they were all allegedly dismissed
from their employment.
 Private respondent Aurora Cruz however denied that said petitioners were her regular
employees and instead averred that she engaged their services, through Spouses Fortunato
Mercado, Sr. and Rosa Mercado, their “mandarols”, that is, persons who take charge in
supplying the number of workers needed by owners of various farms, but only to do a
particular phase of agricultural work necessary which they would be free to render services to
other farm owners who need their services.
 LA: ruled in favor of private respondents. NLRC: affirmed

Issue & Ruling


WON petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers and thus entitled to benefits being prayed
for. NO
 The first paragraph of Art. 280 answers the question of who are regular employees. It states
that, regardless of any written or oral agreement to the contrary, an employee is deemed
regular where he is engaged in necessary or desirable activities in the usual business or trade
of the employer, except for project employees.
 A project employee has been defined to be one whose employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at
the time of the engagement of the employee, or where the work or service to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season, as in the present
case.
 Petitioners contend that they are then casual employees that rendered service for more than a
year and thus should be regular. Policy Instruction No. 12 of the Department of Labor and
Employment discloses that the concept of regular and casual employees was designed to put
an end to casual employment in regular jobs, which has been abused by many employers to
prevent so-called casuals from enjoying the benefits of regular employees or to prevent
casuals from joining unions.
 But petitioners are not regular and permanent workers of the private respondents, for the
nature of the terms and conditions of their hiring reveal that they were required to perform
phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time after which their services would be
available to any other farm owner. contention of working twelve (12) hours a day the whole
year round in the farm, an exaggeration, for the reason that the planting of rice and sugar cane
does not entail a whole year as reported in the findings of the Chief of the NLRC Special Task
Force.
 Clearly, therefore, petitioners being project employees, or, to use the correct term, seasonal
employees, their employment legally ends upon completion of the project or the season. The
termination of their employment cannot and should not constitute an illegal dismissal.

You might also like