Zamudio vs. NLRC

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Employee-Employer Relationship

ZAMUDIO VS. NLRC
GR NO. 76723
March 25, 1990

Facts:

Petitioners rendered services essential for the cultivation of respondent’s farm. While the services were not continuous in the sense that they were not rendered everyday throughout the year, as is the nature of farm work, petitioners had never stopped working for respondent from year to year from the time he hired them to the time he dismissed.

Issue:

Are the petitioners considerdd as employees?

Ruling:

The nature of their employment, i.e. “Pakyao” basis, does not make petitioner independent contractors. Pakyao workers are considered employees as long as the employer exercises control over the means by which such workers are to perform their work inside private respondents farm, the latter necessarily exercised control over the performed by petitioners.

The seasonal nature of petitioner’s work does not detract from the conclusion that employer – employee relationship exits. Seasonal workers whose work is not merely for the duration of the season, but who are rehired every working season are considered regular employees. The circumstances that petitioners do not apears in respondent’s payroll does not destroy the employer – employee relationship between them. Omission of petitioners in the payroll was not within their control, they had no hand in the preparation of the payroll. This circumstance, even if true, cannot be taken against petitioners.

Acknowledgement: Jaja Oftana