UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORP (URSUMCO) AND CABATI VS ANG

Complainants are employees of URSUMCO, hired on various dates and on different

capacities. URSUMCO initially hired them for a period of 1 month or for a given
season but they repeatedly hired the complainants for the same duties and required
them to sign new employment contracts.
Complainants then filed before LA complaints for regularization and entitlement to
the benefits under the existing CBA.
LA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit
NLRC: reversed LA ruling, declared the complainants as regular URSUMCO
employees and granted their money claims under the CBA
NLRC said that the complainants performed activities which were usually
necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of URSUMCO and had
been repeatedly hired for the same undertaking every season
CA: affirmed the NLRC finding that the complainants were regular employees but
deleted the grant of monetary benefits under the CBA
CA concluded that the complainants were regular employees with respect to
the activity that they had been performing and while the activity continued
Ruled that they werent entitled to the CBA benefits because they were
regular seasonal workers while the CBA-covered employees were performing
tasks needed by URSUMCO for the entire year with no regard to the changing
season
ISSUES: WON the R are regular employees of URSUMCO YES, but the SC clarified
that they were REGULAR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES.
GENERAL RULE REGULAR EMPLOYMENT: When the employee performs activities
considered necessary and desirable to the overall business scheme of the employer,
the law regards the employee as regular.
EXCEPTION CASUAL EMPLOYMENT: Art 280 (2) the LC also considers regular a
casual employment arrangement when the casual employees engagement has
lasted for at least 1 year, regardless of the engagements continuity.
controlling test: the length of time during which the employee is engaged
PROJECT EMPLOYMENT: contemplates an arrangement whereby the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose completion or termination has
been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee
2 requirements:
o designation of a specific project or undertaking for which the employee
is hired
o clear determination of the completion or termination of the project at
the time of the employees engagement
the length of time of the project employees engagement is not controlling
since the employment may last for more than a year, depending on the needs
of the project. IF however, the length of time or continuous rehiring even after
the project stops could serve as a badge of regular employment when the
activities performed are necessary and indispensable to the usual business or
trade of the employer

SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT: similar to project employment but it involves work or

service that is seasonal in nature
To exclude seasonal employees from regular employees, the employer
must show that:
o The employee must be performing work or services that are seasonal
in nature; and
o He had been employed for the duration of the season
If seasonal workers are continuously rehired to perform the same tasks for
several seasons or even after the season stops, the length of time could serve
as a badge of regular employment
CASUAL EMPLOYMENT refers to any other employment arrangement that doesnt
fall under the first two categories of regular or project/seasonal
The nature of employment depends on the nature of the activities to be performed by
the employee, considering the nature of the employers business, the duration and
scope to be done and in some cases, even the length of time of the performance and
its continued existence.
APPLICATION TO THE INSTANT CASE:
The SC ruled that the R are regular season workers of URSUMCO (not project,
seasonal or fixed-term) because:
The R were tasked to perform duties regularly and habitually needed in
URSUMCOs operations, although they were not the same workers needed in
the plantation season and the milling season. The production of sugarcane
required a different set of workers from those experienced in farm/agricultural
work but nonetheless, both sets of workers were needed for each of the
seasons
The R were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks year
after year because of this, in jurisprudence there was put in place the
system of regular seasonal employment in the sugar industry and other
industries with a similar nature of operations
o BUT they should be differentiated from the regular employees of the
sugar mill like the administrative or office personnel who perform their
tasks year round
No evidence on record that after the completion of their tasks at URSUMCO,
the R sought and obtained employment elsewhere
What happened in the case: the CA misread the NLRCs decision. The NLRC declared
the R as regular employees without distinction, so when the CA affirmed the NLRC
ruling (and declaring regular seasonal employees as regular employees), it was
acting with GAD. Therefore the CA ruling should be set aside.