ABELLA

VS
NLRC

FACTS:
- Rosalina Perez Abella leased a farm land in Negros Occidental for a
period of 10 years, renewable at her option, for another ten (10)
years
- After the expiration, she opted to extend the lease contract for
another 10 years
- During the existence of the lease, she employed the respondents,
Romeo Quitco and Ricardo Dionele, Sr
- Upon the expiration of her leasehold rights, petitioner dismissed
private respondents and sent the hacienda back to the owners who
continued the management, cultivation and operation of the farm
- Private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner for
overtime pay, illegal dismissal and reinstatement with backwages
- Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal is warranted by the cessation
of business but granted the private respondents separation pay
- On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal
for lack of merit
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was
denied in a Resolution
- Hence, the present petition

ISSUE:
Whether or not the private respondents are entitled to separation
pay

HELD:
- Petition is devoid of merit
- The controlling law is Art 284 BP 130, which provides for the rights
of the employee under the circumstances of termination
- The purpose of Art 284 as amended is obvious-the protection of the
workers whose employment is terminated because of the closure of
establishment and reduction of personnel
- Without said law, employees like private respondents in the case at
bar will lose the benefits to which they are entitled
- As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, Art 284 as amended
refers to employment benefits to farm hands who were not parties to
petitioners lease contract with the owner of Hacienda Danao-
Ramona. That contract cannot have the effect of annulling
subsequent legislation designed to protect the interest of the
working class