G.R. No. 122122 July 20, 1999
PHILIPPINE FRUIT & VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES, INC. and its President and General Manager, MR. PEDRO CASTILLO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union-Tupas Local Chapter, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Industries, Inc. (PFVII) is a government-owned corporation engaged in manufacturing and processing fruit and vegetable purees for export. Private respondent Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union-Tupas Local Chapter, on behalf of its members, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and/or illegal dismissal against petitioners. The union alleged its members started working for San Carlos Fruits Corporation, which later incorporated into PFVII around January or February 1983, until their dismissal on various dates in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988, claiming the dismissals were due to union activities and without just cause. The number of complainants eventually reached 194. The Labor Arbiter found petitioners liable for illegal dismissal, ordering payment of backwages, 13th month pay, and separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the decision with modification, limiting the attorney’s fees award. Petitioners assail the NLRC’s decision, contending the complainants were seasonal employees whose employment ceased during the off-season due to no work, not illegal dismissal. They also argued that only 78 complainants testified and substantiated their claims, contrary to an alleged agreement that those who fail to do so would be considered to have abandoned their complaints.

ISSUE

Whether the complaining members of respondent union are regular employees of PFVII or are seasonal workers whose employment ceased during the off-season due to the non-availability of work.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision with modification. It held that the complainants were regular employees, not seasonal workers. The nature of PFVII’s business, which processes various fruits and vegetables throughout the year (tomatoes, mangoes, calamansi, guyabano, papaya, pineapple) and requires administrative functions and machine maintenance, indicates the need for services for more than six months a year. The Court upheld the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, which are entitled to great weight and supported by substantial evidence, including individual affidavits, pay slips, identification cards, and testimonies. However, the Court reversed the award concerning 114 union members who did not adduce evidence to support their claims. It ruled that a judgment for payment of backwages must be based on clear proof of the actual period of employment and the actual wages received. Since only 80 members (listed in the decision) presented sufficient evidence, the award was limited to them. The NLRC decision was AFFIRMED for the 80 members but REVERSED for the other 114.