G.R. No. 186439 ; January 15, 2014.
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, Petitioners, vs. Ferdinand Acibo, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) is a domestic corporation engaged in sugar cane milling. Respondents were employees hired by URSUMCO on various dates between 1988 and 1996 in capacities such as drivers, crane operators, welders, mechanics, and laborers. At the start of each engagement, respondents signed employment contracts for a period of one month or for a given season. URSUMCO repeatedly hired them for the same duties, requiring new contracts for each engagement. On August 23, 2002, respondents filed complaints for regularization and entitlement to Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling respondents were seasonal or project workers not directly related to URSUMCO’s main operations. Seven of the twenty-two original complainants appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the Labor Arbiter, declared respondents regular employees, and granted CBA benefits. URSUMCO elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s finding that respondents were regular employees but deleted the grant of CBA benefits, ruling respondents constituted a separate bargaining unit from year-round regular employees. URSUMCO filed the present petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondents are regular employees of URSUMCO.
2. Whether affirmative relief can be given to the fifteen complainants who did not appeal the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

RULING

1. Yes, respondents are regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO. The primary standard for determining regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code is the reasonable connection between the employee’s activity and the employer’s usual business. The Court found that the various tasks performed by respondents (e.g., as drivers, crane operators, welders) were necessary and desirable to URSUMCO’s sugar milling business. Their repeated hiring for the same tasks every season, regardless of the contracts’ fixed durations, evidenced the necessity and indispensability of their work. The fact that their work was seasonal did not detract from their status as regular employees with respect to that seasonal activity. The Court rejected URSUMCO’s argument that respondents were merely project/seasonal workers, noting the failure to prove respondents were free to work elsewhere during the off-season. Seasonal workers who are regularly re-hired every season are considered regular employees.
2. No, affirmative relief cannot be extended to the fifteen non-appealing complainants. The Court affirmed the CA’s modification deleting the grant of CBA benefits. It held that while respondents were regular seasonal employees, they performed work necessary only during the milling season, unlike the CBA-covered regular employees who worked year-round. Thus, for collective bargaining purposes, they constituted a separate and distinct bargaining unit and were not entitled to the benefits under the CBA negotiated for the year-round regular employees. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.