SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 150478. April 15, 2005.]

HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE, INC./HORTENCIA L. STARKE ,

petitioners, vs . CANDIDO CUENCA, FRANCISCO ACULIT, ANGELINA
ALMONIA, DONALD ALPUERTO, NIDA BANGALISAN, ROGELIO
CHAVEZ, ELMO DULINGGIS, MERCEDES EMPERADO, TORIBIO
EMPERADO, JULIANA ENCARNADO, REYNALDO ENCARNADO, GENE
FERNANDO, JOVEN FERNANDO, HERNANI FERNANDO, TERESITA
FERNANDO, BONIFACIO GADON, JOSE GALLADA, RAMONITO
KILAYKO, ROLANDO KILAYKO, ALFREDO LASTIMOSO, ANTONIO
LOMBO, ELIAS LOMBO, EMMA LOMBO, LAURENCIA LOMBO, LUCIA
LOMBO, JOEL MALACAPAY, ADELA MOJELLO, ERNESTO MOJELLO,
FRUCTOSO MOJELLO, JESSICA MOJELLO, JOSE MOJELLO,
MARITESS MOJELLO, MERLITA MOJELLO, ROMEO MOJELLO,
RONALDO MOJELLO, VALERIANA MOJELLO, JAIME NEMENZO,
RODOLFO NAPABLE, SEGUNDIA OCDEN, JARDIOLINA PABALINAS,
LAURO PABALINAS, NOLI PABALINAS, RUBEN PABALINAS, ZALDY
PABALINAS, ALFREDO PANOLINO, JOAQUIN PEDUHAN, JOHN
PEDUHAN, REYNALDO PEDUHAN, ROGELIO PEDUHAN, JOSEPHINE
PEDUHAN, ANTONIO PORRAS, JR., LORNA PORRAS, JIMMY REYES,
ALICIA ROBERTO, MARCOS ROBERTO, JR., MARIA SANGGA,
RODRIGO SANGGA, ARGENE SERON, SAMUEL SERON, SR.,
ANGELINO SENELONG, ARMANDO SENELONG, DIOLITO SENELONG,
REYNALDO SENELONG, VICENTE SENELONG, FEDERICO STA. ANA,
ROGELIO SUASIM, EDNA TADLAS, ARTURO TITONG, JR., JOSE
TITONG, JR., NANCY VINGNO, ALMA YANSON, JIMMY YANSON,
MYRNA VILLANUEVA BELENARIO, SALVADOR MALACAPAY, and
RAMELO TIONGCO , respondents.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR ., J : p

Before us is a petition for review of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA),
dated July 31, 2001, and the Resolution dated September 24, 2001 denying the petitioners'
motion for reconsideration. The assailed decision modi ed the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. V-000099-98.
Hacienda Bino is a 236-hectare sugar plantation located at Barangay Orong,
Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, and represented in this case by Hortencia L. Starke,
owner and operator of the said hacienda.
The 76 individual respondents were part of the workforce of Hacienda Bino
consisting of 220 workers, performing various works, such as cultivation, planting of cane
points, fertilization, watering, weeding, harvesting, and loading of harvested sugarcanes to
cargo trucks. 2

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 On July 18, 1996, during the off-milling season, petitioner Starke issued an Order or
Notice which stated, thus:
To all Hacienda Employees:

Please bear in mind that all those who signed in favor of CARP are
expressing their desire to get out of employment on their own volition.
Wherefore, beginning today, July 18, only those who did not sign for CARP
will be given employment by Hda. Bino.

(Sgd.) Hortencia Starke 3

The respondents regarded such notice as a termination of their employment. As a

consequence, they led a complaint for illegal dismissal, wage differentials, 13th month
pay, holiday pay and premium pay for holiday, service incentive leave pay, and moral and
exemplary damages with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City, on
September 17, 1996. 4
In their Joint Sworn Statement, the respondents as complainants alleged inter alia
that they are regular and permanent workers of the hacienda and that they were dismissed
without just and lawful cause. They further alleged that they were dismissed because they
applied as bene ciaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) over
the land owned by petitioner Starke. 5
For her part, petitioner Starke recounted that the company's Board of Directors
petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan of Kabankalan for authority to re-classify, from
agricultural to industrial, commercial and residential, the whole of Hacienda Bino, except
the portion earmarked for the CARP. She asserted that half of the workers supported the
re-classi cation but the others, which included the herein respondents, opted to become
bene ciaries of the land under the CARP. Petitioner Starke alleged that in July 1996, there
was little work in the plantation as it was off-season; and so, on account of the seasonal
nature of the work, she issued the order giving preference to those who supported the re-
classi cation. She pointed out that when the milling season began in October 1996, the
work was plentiful again and she issued notices to all workers, including the respondents,
informing them of the availability of work. However, the respondents refused to report
back to work. With respect to the respondents' money claims, petitioner Starke submitted
payrolls evidencing payment thereof. IDTSaC

On October 6, 1997, Labor Arbiter Ray Allan T. Drilon rendered a Decision, 6 nding
that petitioner Starke's notice dated July 18, 1996 was tantamount to a termination of the
respondents' services, and holding that the petitioner company was guilty of illegal
dismissal. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring
the dismissal of the complainants illegal and ordering respondent Hortencia L.
Starke, Inc. represented by Hortencia L. Starke, as President, to:

1. Reinstate the complainants to their former position without loss of

seniority rights immediately upon receipt of this decision;

2. PAY the backwages and wage differentials of the complainants, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

in the total amount of Four Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Eight

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Hundred Fifty-Two and 72/100 (P495,852.72) Pesos; and

3. TO PAY the complainants attorney's fee in the amount of Forty-Nine

Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Five and 27/100 (P49,585.27)
Pesos.

Respondents are further directed to deposit to this O ce the total

judgment award of FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND FOUR
HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN AND 99/100 (P545,437.99) PESOS within ten (10)
days from receipt of this decision.

All other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 7

Both the petitioners and the respondents appealed the case to the NLRC. On July 24,
1998, the NLRC a rmed with modi cation the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The
dispositive part of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Respondent is further ordered to pay the
complainants listed in the Holiday Pay Payroll the amounts due them.

SO ORDERED. 8

A motion for reconsideration of the said decision was denied by the NLRC. 9
Dissatis ed, the respondents appealed the case to the CA where the following issues were
raised:
A. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND
POWER BY VIOLATING THE DOCTRINE OF " STARE DECISIS " LAID DOWN
BY THE SUPREME COURT AND THE APPLICABLE LAWS AS TO THE
STATUS OF THE SUGAR WORKERS.

B. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS BY

ADMITTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR ANSWER TO
PETITIONERS' APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 26, 1998 FILED
BY COUNSEL FOR THE HEREIN RESPONDENTS INSPITE OF THE FACT
THAT IT WAS FILED WAY BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD.
C. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE SWEEPING ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINANTS
AS TO THE AWARD OF BACKWAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY WITHOUT ANY
BASIS. 1 0

On July 31, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision, 1 1 the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is
hereby MODIFIED by deleting the award for holiday pay and premium pay for
holidays. The rest of the Decision is hereby AFFIRMED. ASTcEa

SO ORDERED. 1 2

The CA ruled that the concept of stare decisis is not relevant to the present case. It
held that the ruling in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC 1 3 does not operate to abandon the settled
doctrine that sugar workers are considered regular and permanent farm workers of a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 sugar plantation owner, considering that there are facts peculiar in that case which are not
present in the case at bar. In the Mercado case, the farm laborers worked only for a
de nite period for a farm owner since the area of the land was comparatively small, after
which they offer their services to other farm owners. In this case, the area of the hacienda,
which is 236 hectares, simply does not allow for the respondents to work for a de nite
period only.
The CA also held that the petitioners' reliance on Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. Inc. v.
NLRC 1 4 was misplaced, as it in fact, bolstered the respondents' posture that they are
regular employees. In that case, the Court held that a sugar worker may be considered as
in regular employment even during those years when he is merely a seasonal worker where
the issues concern the determination of an employer-employee relationship and security
of tenure.
Further, the CA held that the respondents' appeal to the NLRC was not perfected
since they failed to accompany their notice of appeal with a memorandum of appeal, or to
timely le a memorandum of appeal. Thus, as to them, the decision of the Labor Arbiter
became nal and executory. The NLRC, therefore, gravely abused its discretion when it
modi ed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and awarded to the respondents holiday pay
and premium for holiday pay. Finally, the CA a rmed the award of backwages, nding no
circumstance that would warrant a reversal of the ndings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC
on this point. 1 5
On September 24, 2001, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration led by the
petitioners due to their failure to indicate the date of the receipt of the decision to
determine the timeliness of the motion. 1 6
Hence, this petition for review.
The petitioners submit the following issues:
A. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION AND POWER BY VIOLATING THE DOCTRINE OF " STARE
DECISIS " LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT AND THE APPLICABLE
LAWS AS TO THE STATUS OF THE SUGAR WORKERS.

B. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED

IN DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR FAILURE TO
STATE THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE DECISION IN THE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION. 1 7

Petitioner Starke contends that the established doctrine that seasonal employees
are regular employees had been overturned and abandoned by Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC. 1 8
She stresses that in that case, the Court held that petitioners therein who were sugar
workers, are seasonal employees and their employment legally ends upon completion of
the project or the season. Petitioner Starke argues that the CA violated the doctrine of
stare decisis in not applying the said ruling. She asserts that the respondents, who are also
sugar workers, are seasonal employees; hence, their employment can be terminated at the
end of the season and such termination cannot be considered an illegal dismissal.
Petitioner Starke maintains that the determination of whether the workers are regular or
seasonal employees is not dependent on the number of hectares operated upon by them,
or the number of workers, or the capitalization involved, but rather, in the nature of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 work. She asserts that the respondents also made their services available to the
neighboring haciendas. To buttress her contention that the respondents are seasonal
employees, petitioner Starke cites Rep. Act 6982, An Act Strengthening the Social
Amelioration Program in the Sugar Industry, Providing the Mechanics for its
Implementation, and for other Purposes, which recognizes the seasonal nature of the work
in the sugar industry. 1 9
Petitioner Starke also takes exception to the denial of her motion for
reconsideration due to failure to state the date of the receipt of the decision. She asserts
that a denial of a motion for reconsideration due to such cause is merely directory and not
mandatory on the part of the CA. Considering that the amount involved in this case and the
fact that the motion was led within the reglementary period, the CA should have
considered the motion for reconsideration despite such procedural lapse. 2 0
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners erroneously invoke the
doctrine of stare decisis since the factual backdrop of this case and the Mercado case is
not similar. The respondents posit that the Mercado case ruled on the status of
employment of farm laborers who work only for a de nite period of time for a farm owner,
after which they offer their services to other farm owners. Contrarily, the respondents
contend that they do not work for a de nite period but throughout the whole year, and do
not make their services available to other farm owners. Moreover, the land involved in the
Mercado case is comparatively smaller than the sugar land involved in this case. The
respondents insist that the vastness of the land involved in this case requires the workers
to work on a year-round basis, and not on an "on-and-off" basis like the farm workers in the
Mercado case. DcCIAa

Finally, the respondents maintain that the requirement that the date of receipt of the
decision should be indicated in the motion for reconsideration is mandatory and
jurisdictional and, if not complied with, the court must deny the motion outright. 2 1
The petition is without merit.
On the substantial issue of whether the respondents are regular or seasonal
employees, the petitioners contend that the CA violated the doctrine of stare decisis by
not applying the ruling in the Mercado case that sugar workers are seasonal employees.
We hold otherwise. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when a court has laid down a
principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and
apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. 2 2 Where the facts
are essentially different, however, stare decisis does not apply, for a perfectly sound
principle as applied to one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual
variance is introduced. 2 3
The CA correctly found that the facts involved in this case are different from the
Mercado case; therefore, the ruling in that case cannot be applied to the case at bar, thus:
We do not nd the concept of stare decisis relevant in the case at bench.
For although in the Mercado case, the Supreme Court held the petitioners who
were sugar workers not to be regular but seasonal workers, nevertheless, the same
does not operate to abandon the settled doctrine of the High Court that sugar
workers are considered regular and permanent farm workers of a sugar plantation
owner, the reason being that there are facts present that are peculiar to the
Mercado case. The disparity in facts between the Mercado case and the instant
case is best exempli ed by the fact that the former decision ruled on the status of
employment of farm laborers, who, as found by the labor arbiter, work only for a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 de nite period for a farm worker, after which they offer their services to other
farm owners, considering the area in question being comparatively small,
comprising of seventeen and a half (17 1/2) hectares of land, such that the
planting of rice and sugar cane thereon could not possibly entail a whole year
operation. The herein case presents a different factual condition as the enormity
of the size of the sugar hacienda of petitioner, with an area of two hundred thirty-
six (236) hectares, simply do not allow for private respondents to render work only
for a definite period.

Indeed, in a number of cases, the Court has recognized the peculiar facts attendant
in the Mercado case. In Abasolo v. NLRC, 2 4 and earlier, in Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing &
Redrying Corporation v. NLRC, 2 5 the Court made the following observations:
. . . In Mercado, although respondent constantly availed herself of the
petitioners' services from year to year, it was clear from the facts therein that they
were not in her regular employ. Petitioners therein performed different phases of
agricultural work in a given year. However, during that period, they were free to
work for other farm owners, and in fact they did. In other words, they worked for
respondent, but were nevertheless free to contract their services with other farm
owners. The Court was thus emphatic when it ruled that petitioners were mere
project employees, who could be hired by other farm owners. . . . 2 6

Recently, the Court reiterated the same observations in Hacienda Fatima v. National
Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade 2 7 and added that the
petitioners in the Mercado case were "not hired regularly and repeatedly for the same
phase/s of agricultural work, but on and off for any single phase thereof."
In this case, there is no evidence on record that the same particulars are present.
The petitioners did not present any evidence that the respondents were required to
perform certain phases of agricultural work for a de nite period of time. Although the
petitioners assert that the respondents made their services available to the neighboring
haciendas, the records do not, however, support such assertion.
The primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual trade or business of the employer. 2 8 There is no doubt that the respondents were
performing work necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of an employer.
Hence, they can properly be classified as regular employees. EcSCAD

For respondents to be excluded from those classi ed as regular employees, it is not

enough that they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature. They must have
been employed only for the duration of one season. 2 9 While the records su ciently show
that the respondents' work in the hacienda was seasonal in nature, there was, however, no
proof that they were hired for the duration of one season only. In fact, the payrolls, 3 0
submitted in evidence by the petitioners, show that they availed the services of the
respondents since 1991. Absent any proof to the contrary, the general rule of regular
employment should, therefore, stand. It bears stressing that the employer has the burden
of proving the lawfulness of his employee's dismissal. 3 1
On the procedural issue, petitioner Starke avers that the CA should not have denied
outright her motion for reconsideration, considering its timely ling and the huge amount
involved. This contention is already moot. Petitioner Starke has already aired in this
petition the arguments in her motion for reconsideration of the CA decision, which have
been adequately addressed by this Court. Assuming arguendo that the CA indeed failed to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 consider the motion for reconsideration, petitioner Starke was not left without any other
recourse. 3 2
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals, dated July 31, 2001, and its Resolution dated September 24, 2001 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Austria-Martinez, Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner (now Presiding Justice of the Court of
Appeals), with Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Rebecca de Guia-
Salvador, concurring.

2. Rollo, p. 102.
3. CA Rollo, p. 43.
4. Rollo, p. 103.
5. Id. at 36.
6. Id. at 35-51.

7. Id. at 49-51.
8. CA Rollo, p. 47.
9. Id. at 56-58.
10. Id. at 5.
11. Rollo, pp. 19-28.

12. Id. at 27-28.

13. G.R. No. 79869, 5 September 1991, 201 SCRA 332.
14. G.R. No. 84272, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 155.
15. Rollo, pp. 25-27.

16. Id. at 34.

17. Id. at 6.
18. Supra.
19. Rollo, pp. 87-96.
20. Id. at 14-16.

21. Rollo, pp. 105-108.

22. Villena v. Chavez, G.R. No. 148126, 10 November 2003, 415 SCRA 33.
23. Lee v. Insurance Company of North America, 70 Haw. 120, 763 P.2d 567 (1988).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 24. G.R. No. 118475, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 293.
25. G.R. No. 127395, 10 December 1998, 300 SCRA 37.

26. Id. at 61.

27. G.R. No. 149440, 28 January 2003, 396 SCRA 518.
28. Tan v. Lagrama, G.R. No. 151228, 15 August 2002, 387 SCRA 393.

29. Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade,
supra.
30. CA Rollo, pp. 58-60.

31. Tan v. Lagrama, supra.

32. See Vergara v. National Labor Relations Commission , G.R. No. 117196, 5 December 1997,
282 SCRA 486.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com