HACIENDA LEDDY / RICARDO GAMBOA v. PAQUITO VILLEGAS
o
o or 5R3s con4enience as the nature o wor, calls or it Lon' period o doin' odd )obs necessary or
FACTS •
Paquito: employee employee at Hacienda Leddy as early as 1960 (when it was still named Hacienda Teresa and owned by Ricardo amboa! "r## $ow owned by son Ricardo amboa! %r#& o "u'ar armin' )ob *hrs+day! 6d+w,! not
desirable to trade or business A567859 (/& those casual employees who ha4e rendered at least one year o ser4ice! whether continuous or bro,en! with respect to acti4ity in which he is employed / Paquito passed the reasonable connection test o while len'th o time not controllin' test to
-.0/d+yr P+day 2lso wor,ed at Ric,y3s coconut lumber
o
•
• •
business (P.+d or *hr wor,& (6+9+9.& Ric,y went to Paquito3s house and told him that his ser4ices were no lon'er needed without prior notice or 4alid reason Paquito iled complaint or ille'al dismissal 1 yr later Ric,y denied dismissal o Paquito was casual e!l"#ee $"%&' "$$ (")s* !a%$ "& a !%ece+,a-e !%ece+,a-e )as%s )as%s /" su!e,v%s%"& admitted that Paquito wor,ed in
o
• •
arm owned by ather! doin' casual and odd )obs till the latter3s death in 199.# Paquito also 'i4en beneit o occupyin'
o
small portion o land where his house was erected Paquito stopped wor,in' in arm on 199/ R5TR2T57 statement: only time Paquito
o
wor,ed in arm was on 199. when he was contracted to cut coconut lumber 2s,ed Paquito to 4acate his property but he
o
reused "urmises that Paquito iled complaint to
o
•
2ct o 'ood will by 5R either out o 'ratitude
'ain le4era'e so he would not be e4icted rom land he is occupyin' LA ille'al dismissal NLRC L2 NLRC L2 decision set aside CA L2 CA L2 decision reinstated
o
determine re'ularity o employment! it is indicati4e o 8$ he was hired to perorm tas,s necessary and indispensable to usual business or trade Paquito was repeatedly rehired o4er lon' period o time
Pa#e&- "& a !%ece+,a-e )as%s $"es &"- &e'a-e ,e'ula, e!l"#e&nly a method o compensation! does not deine •
labor relations. Pe-%-%"&e, 0a%le$ -" !,"ve a)a&$"&e&- "0 ",: )# Pa2u%-" 7oes not ma,e sense why Paquito would suddenly stop wor,in' or no reason ater more than /0 years =ilin' o complaint ne'ates intention o abandonin' wor, 7elay o <1 yr o,ay: 2/91 L pro4ides or . yr period> Paquito w+o educational attainment and could not ha4e ,nown that he has ri'hts as a re'ular 55 protected by law CONCLUSION ille'al dismissal
ISSUE 8$ Paquito is a casual employee# NO HELD LC $,as 0%&e l%&e )e-ee& REGULAR a&$ CASUAL e!l"#ees 1 $otwithstandin' a'reements to contrary! what determines whether whether employment is re'ular or casual is $T the will and word o 5R! much less procedure o hirin' or manner o payin' salary# t is the NATURE o the acti4ities perormed in relation to particular business or trades considerin' all circumstances! and in some cases the len'th o time o its perormance and continued e;istence# •
Pa2u%-"3s le&'-4 "0 se,v%ce %&$%ca-%"& "0 ,e'ula,%-# "0 e!l"#e&- )# "!e,a-%"& "0 la
Works, Inc. v. NLRC. Reasonable 2 Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, connection test# 55 has been perormin' )ob or at least 1 yr! law deems repeated and continuin' need or perormance as suicient e4idence o necessity
3 A;< LC. =a'e remuneration or earnin's! capable o bein' e;pressed in terms o money whether i;ed or ascertained on a time! tas,! piece or commission basis
1 Baguio Country Club v. NLRC. ntent to sae'uard tenurial interest o wor,er who may be denied the ri'hts and beneits due a re'ular employee by 4irtue o lopsided a'reements with economically powerul 5R
4 T" (us-%0# a)a&$"&e&- "0 ",:: ",:: proo o deliberate and un)ustiied reusal o 55 to resume employment# "hown by ?5RT 2T"# @urden o proo on 5R#
