19. [G.R. No. 71813. July 20, 1987.

ROSALINA PEREZ ABELLA/HDA. DANAO-RAMONA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ROMEO QUITCO and RICARDO DIONELE, SR., respondents.

Facts:
On June 27, 1960, herein petitioner Rosalina Perez Abella (sya ni rent) leased a farmland in Ponteverde, Negros Occidental, known
as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a period of ten (10) years, renewable, at her option, for another ten (10) years. On August 13, 1970,
she opted to extend the lease contract for another ten (10) years.

During the existence of the lease, she employed the herein private respondents. Private respondent Ricardo Dionele, Sr. has been a
regular farm worker since 1949 and he was promoted to Cabo in 1963. On the other hand, private respondent Romeo Quitco started
as a regular employee in 1968 and was promoted to Cabo in November of the same year.

Upon the expiration of her leasehold rights, petitioner dismissed private respondents and turned over the hacienda to the owners
thereof.

On November 20, 1981, private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner at the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Bacolod
City District Office, for overtime pay, illegal dismissal and reinstatement with backwages.

LABOR ARBITER: dismissal is warranted by the cessation of business, but granted the private respondents separation pay.

NLRC: affirmed the decision of the LA and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Motion of reconsideration was also dismissed.

RULING:
The petition is devoid of merit.
The sole issue in this case is —
WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY. - YES
Petitioner claims that since her lease agreement had already expired, she is not liable for payment of separation pay. Neither could
she reinstate the complainants in the farm as this is a complete cessation or closure of a business operation, a just cause for
employment termination under Article 272 of the Labor Code

On the other hand, the legal basis of the Labor Arbiter in granting separation pay to the private respondents is Batas Pambansa Blg.
130, amending the Labor Code, Section 15

There is no question that Article 284 of the Labor Code as amended by BP 130 is the law applicable in this case.

Petitioner then contends that the aforequoted provision violates the constitutional guarantee against impairment of
obligations and contracts (Article 3, Sec 10, page 6) because when she leased Hacienda Danao-Ramona on June 27, 1960, neither
she nor the lessor contemplated the creation of the obligation to pay separation pay to workers at the end of the lease.
Such contention is untenable.
The purpose of Article 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 — for the thirty three years of service in the case of Dionele and fourteen years in
the case of Quitco.
In any event, it is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing
regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. (Volshel Labor Union v. Bureau of Labor
Relations, 137 SCRA 43 [1985]). It is the kind of interpretation which gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate
spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that `all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor." The
policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which
is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection to labor.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the July 16, 1982 Decision of the Labor Arbiter and
the April 8, 1985 Resolution of the Ministry of Labor and Employment are hereby AFFIRMED.