G.R. No. 153192 ; January 30, 2009
DEALCO FARMS, INC., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (5th DIVISION), CHIQUITO BASTIDA, and ALBERT CABAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dealco Farms, Inc. is a corporation engaged in importing, fattening, and distributing live cattle. Respondents Chiquito Bastida and Albert Caban were hired by petitioner on October 29, 1994 and June 25, 1993, respectively, as escorts or “comboys” for the transit of live cattle from General Santos City to Manila. Their work involved tending to the cattle during transportation, including feeding and showering them to prevent dehydration and ensure safety. They were paid ₱1,500.00 per round trip, which lasted an average of 12 days, and they typically made two trips per month. On October 15, 1999, respondents, along with two others, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with various money claims against petitioner. They alleged that on August 19, 1999, they were told by a “hepe de viaje” that they were being replaced without reason, and their attempts to meet with management were futile. Petitioner denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship, claiming respondents were independent contractors engaged on a “per-trip” basis and that their services were no longer needed due to a substantial decrease in cattle imports. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, finding them to be regular employees and awarding separation pay and COLA, but denying other claims like backwages. The NLRC affirmed this decision, and the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents.

RULING

Yes, an employer-employee relationship existed. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals. The four-fold test for determining such a relationship—selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control—was satisfied. Petitioner admitted hiring and paying respondents. Control was evident as respondents’ tasks (preparing cattle for shipment, manning and feeding them during transit, and reporting upon return) were performed according to petitioner’s instructions, especially given the high value of the cattle. Respondents’ work as “comboys” was necessary and desirable in petitioner’s usual business, which included transporting cattle to its main market in Manila. Their repeated hiring for the same task over several years (since 1993 and 1994) made them regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as they had rendered more than one year of service. Petitioner’s claim that respondents were independent contractors or casual employees failed due to lack of evidence that respondents offered services to other traders or were free from petitioner’s control. The termination due to a decrease in business volume constituted illegal dismissal without just cause and due process, warranting the award of separation pay.