Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Benares vs. Pancho

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Benares, the owner of a sugar cane plantation. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but the NLRC reversed, finding that respondents had worked at the plantation from 1964-1985 and were therefore regular seasonal employees. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed this finding. As regular employees, respondents were entitled to monetary claims for illegal dismissal as the employer failed to prove just cause for their termination. The test for determining regular employment is whether the activities performed by the employee are reasonably connected and necessary to the usual business of the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Benares vs. Pancho

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    71 views2 pages
    Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Benares, the owner of a sugar cane plantation. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but the NLRC reversed, finding that respondents had worked at the plantation from 1964-1985 and were therefore regular seasonal employees. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed this finding. As regular employees, respondents were entitled to monetary claims for illegal dismissal as the employer failed to prove just cause for their termination. The test for determining regular employment is whether the activities performed by the employee are reasonably connected and necessary to the usual business of the employer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    61. Benares vs. Pancho

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Benares, the owner of a sugar cane plantation. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but the NLRC reversed, finding that respondents had worked at the plantation from 1964-1985 and were therefore regular seasonal employees. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed this finding. As regular employees, respondents were entitled to monetary claims for illegal dismissal as the employer failed to prove just cause for their termination. The test for determining regular employment is whether the activities performed by the employee are reasonably connected and necessary to the usual business of the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Benares vs. Pancho

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Benares, the owner of a sugar cane plantation. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but the NLRC reversed, finding that respondents had worked at the plantation from 1964-1985 and were therefore regular seasonal employees. The CA and Supreme Court affirmed this finding. As regular employees, respondents were entitled to monetary claims for illegal dismissal as the employer failed to prove just cause for their termination. The test for determining regular employment is whether the activities performed by the employee are reasonably connected and necessary to the usual business of the employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    61. BENARES VS.

    PANCHO
    Facts: Respondent Hacienda Maasin II is a sugar cane plantation located in Negros Occidental, owned and
    managed by Josefina Benares, individual co-respondent.
    Complainants alleged to have been terminated without being paid termination benefits by Benares in
    retaliation to what they have done in reporting to the DOLE their working conditions vis-à-vis wages and other
    mandatory benefits. A formal complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims was filed before the NLRC.
    After submission of their position papers, the Labor Arbiter issued an order to the effect that the case is
    submitted for resolution.

    The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC reversed the LA’s decision. The NLRC held that
    respondents attained the status of regular seasonal workers of Hacienda Maasin II having worked therein from
    1964-1985. It found that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that the termination of
    respondents was for a just or authorized cause. Motion for reconsideration was denied. CA affirmed the
    NLRC’s decision.

    Issue: Whether or not respondents are regular employees of Hacienda Maasin II and thus entitled to
    monetary claims.

    Ruling: Yes. The law provides for three kinds of employees: (1) regular employees or those who have been
    engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
    employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
    undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of
    the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
    the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees.

    A seasonal employee is considered a regular employee when the employee has been performing the
    job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems
    repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability
    of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such
    activity and while such activity exists.

    We find no reason to disturb the finding that respondents were illegally terminated. When there is no
    showing of clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case
    of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a just or
    authorized cause. In this case, as found both by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, petitioner failed to prove
    any such cause for the dismissal of respondents.

    Test for determining regular employment: The reasonable connection between the particular activities
    performed by the employee vis-à-vis the usual trade or business of the employer. This connection can be
    determined by the nature of the work performed in relation to the scheme of the particular business.

    You might also like