HACIENDA LEDDY / RICARDO GAMBOA v.

PAQUITO
VILLEGAS
FACTS

Paquito: employee at Hacienda Leddy as early as

1960 (when it was still named Hacienda Teresa and
owned by Ricardo Gamboa, Sr.. Now owned by son
Ricardo Gamboa, Jr.)
o
Sugar farming job 8hrs/day, 6d/wk, not
<302d/yr P45/day
o
Also worked at Rickys coconut lumber
business (P34/d for 8hr work)

(6/9/93) Ricky went to Paquitos house and told him

that his services were no longer needed without prior
notice or valid reason

Paquito filed complaint for illegal dismissal 1 yr later

Ricky denied dismissal

o
Paquito was casual employee doing odd
jobs, paid on a piece-rate basis w/o
supervision

admitted that Paquito worked in

farm owned by father, doing casual
and odd jobs till the latters death
in 1993.
o
Paquito also given benefit of occupying
small portion of land where his house was
erected
o
Paquito stopped working in farm on 1992
o
RETRACTED statement: only time Paquito
worked in farm was on 1993 when he was
contracted to cut coconut lumber
o
Asked Paquito to vacate his property but he
refused
o
Surmises that Paquito filed complaint to
gain leverage so he would not be evicted
from land he is occupying

LA: illegal dismissal

NLRC: LA decision set aside

CA: LA decision reinstated

Act of good will by ER either out of gratitude

of for ERs convenience as the nature of
work calls for it
Long period of doing odd jobs necessary or
desirable to trade or business
A280(2):
(2) those casual employees who have rendered at
least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to activity in which he is
employed2
Paquito passed the reasonable connection test
o
while length of time not controlling test to
determine regularity of employment, it is
indicative of WON he was hired to perform
tasks necessary and indispensable to usual
business or trade
o
Paquito was repeatedly rehired over long
period of time
o

Payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular

employment

Only a method of compensation, does not define

labor relations3
Petitioner failed to prove abandonment of work by
Paquito

Does not make sense why Paquito would suddenly

stop working for no reason after more than 20 years4

Filing of complaint negates intention of abandoning

work

Delay of >1 yr okay: A291 LC provides for 3 yr

period; Paquito w/o educational attainment and
could not have known that he has rights as a regular
EE protected by law
CONCLUSION: illegal dismissal

ISSUE: WON Paquito is a casual employee. NO

HELD:
LC draws fine line between REGULAR and CASUAL
employees1

Notwithstanding agreements to contrary, what

determines whether employment is regular or casual
is NOT the will and word of ER, much less procedure
of hiring or manner of paying salary. It is the
NATURE of the activities performed in relation to
particular business or trades considering all
circumstances, and in some cases the length of time
of its performance and continued existence.
Paquitos length of service indication of regularity of
employment by operation of law

>20 yrs of service

Privilege of erecting house inside hacienda

2 Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. NLRC. Reasonable

connection test. If EE has been performing job for at least 1 yr, law deems
repeated and continuing need for performance as sufficient evidence of necessity

3 A97 LC. Wage: remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in terms

of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis

1 Baguio Country Club v. NLRC. Intent to safeguard tenurial interest of worker

who may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular employee by virtue of
lopsided agreements with economically powerful ER

4 To justify abandonment of work: proof of deliberate and unjustified refusal

of EE to resume employment. Shown by OVERT ACTS. Burden of proof on ER.