HACIENDA LEDDY and GAMBOA v.

VILLEGAS
G.R. No. 179654 | September 22, 2014 | Third Division | Peralta, J.
Petitioner: HACIENDA LEDDY, RICARDO GAMBOA, JR.
Respondent: PAQUITO VILLEGAS

In this case, respondent Paquito worked as early as 1960 at the sugar farm and coconut lumber business
of the Hacienda Leddy owned by petitioner Ricardo. On 1993, Paquito was dismissed from service without
prior notice or valid reason causing him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. In
his defense, Ricardo claimed that it was Paquito who ceased working at the farm in 1992, contrary to the
latter’s allegation that he was dismissed. He would, however, later retract this claim stating that Paquito
only worked for the hacienda in February 1993 and that the complaint was filed by Paquito to gain leverage
so he would not be evicted from the farm. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Paquito was illegally dismissed.
NLRC reversed the LA's decision. The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the NLRC decision and
reinstated the LA’s finding that Paquito was illegally dismissed. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

The main issue in this case is whether or not Paquito is a regular worker of Hacienda Leddy/Ricardo, to
which the Court ruled in the positive. The Court looked for guidance at Article 295 (280) of the Labor Code,
which states that regular employees are those either (1) engaged to perform activities which are necessary
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those casual employees who have
rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which
he is employed. In the case at bar, Paquito had worked for the hacienda for more than 20 years. Even
assuming that he was doing odd jobs around the farm, his years of service and repeated re-hiring are
indicative that his work is either necessary or desirable to Ricardo’s business. Furthermore, owing to his
length of service, Paquito became a regular employee, by operation of law, one year after he was employed.

The Court also acknowledged that what determines whether a certain employment is regular or casual is
not the will and word of the employer, to which the desperate worker often accedes, nor the procedure of
hiring or manner of compensation. Instead, it is nature of the activities performed in relation to the
particular business or trades considering all circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of its
performance and its continued existence, which determines whether one is a regular or casual employee.

Likewise, Ricardo’s claim that Paquito was paid on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular employment,
since it is a mere method of compensation and does not define the essence of the employer-employee
relations. The Court was also unconvinced that it was Paquito who suddenly stopped working, considering
that he was employed in the hacienda for more than 20 years and was even given a land to build his home.
It is a well settled rule that in illegal dismissal cases the burden of proof is on the employer to show that
the employee’s termination is for a just and valid cause or in the case of abandonment of work, that there
was an unequivocal, deliberate, and unjustified intent on the part of the employee to discontinue
employment. In this case, other than the self-serving declarations in the affidavit of his employee, Ricardo
did not adduce proof of overt acts of Paquito showing his intention to abandon his work. On the contrary,
the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint negates any intention on Paquito’s part to sever his employment.

The Court affirmed the CA Decision, ruling that as a regular employee, Paquito is entitled to security of
tenure under Article 294 (279) of the Labor Code and can only be removed for cause. Finding no valid cause
attending to his dismissal, case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the recomputation of Paquito’s
separation pay and backwages with legal interest.