3 Nate Casket Maker v. Elias V. Arango

[3] NATE CASKET MAKER v. ELIAS V.
ARANGO employee, and it will not countenance any attempt to subvert

G.R. No. 192282; October 5, 2016; Peralta, J. its spirit and intent. A stipulation in an agreement can be
ignored as and when it is utilized to deprive the employee of
SUMMARY his security of tenure. The sheer inequality that characterizes
Petitioners employed respondents on various dates in their employer-employee relations, where the scales generally tip
casket-making business from 1998 to 2007. Petitioners allege against the employee, often scarcely provides him real and
that the respondents are pakyaw workers who are paid per better options.
job order. Petitioners eventually ‘contracted-out’ the
respondents for they can no longer accomplish job orders on FACTS:
time.  Petitioners Armando and Anely Nate are the
owners/proprietors of A. Nate Casket Maker. They employed
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE respondents on various dates as carpenters, mascilladors and
 Article XIII. Social Justice and Human Rights: painters in their casket-making business from 1998 until their
alleged termination in March 2007.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,  Petitioners alleged in their Position Paper that respondents
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful are pakyaw workers who are paid per job order.
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance o Respondents are "stay-in" workers with free board
with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane and lodging, but they would "always" drink, quarrel
conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also with each other on petty things such that they could
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting not accomplish the job orders on time.
their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
o Hence, petitioners would then be compelled to
 Art. 280, Labor Code:
"contract out" to other workers for the job to be
finished.
Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of  On February 3, 2007, petitioners met with respondents to
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be present a proposed employment agreement which would
deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged change the existing pakyaw system to "contractual basis" and
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable would provide for vacation leave and sick leave pay and other
in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where benefits given to regular employees.
the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in [1] W/N the respondents are entitled to security of tenure. — YES
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.  There is no dispute that the tasks performed by respondents
as carpenters, painters, and mascilladors were necessary and
DOCTRINE desirable in the usual business of petitioners who are
It must be emphasized that employers cannot seek refuge engaged in the manufacture and selling of caskets.
under whatever terms of the agreement they had entered into  The control test merely calls for the existence of the right to
with their employees. The law affords protection to an control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof. It is not
essential that the employer actually supervises the
performance of duties by the employee. It is enough that the
former has a right to wield the power.
o Hence, pakyaw workers are considered regular
employees for as long as their employers exercise
control over them. Thus, while respondents' mode of
compensation was on a per-piece basis, the status
and nature of their employment was that of regular
employees.
o In addition, the power of control of petitioners over
respondents is clearly present in this case. As the
former wielded control over the respondents in the
discharge of their work.
 The Court also considered the length of time that respondents
worked for petitioners, commencing on various dates from
1998 to 2007.
[2] W/N there was illegal dismissal. — YES
 Petitioners violated respondents' rights to security of tenure
and constitutional right to due process in not even serving
them with a written notice of termination which would recite
any valid or just cause for their dismissal. Respondents were
merely told that their services are terminated.
RULING:
Petitioners violated respondents' rights to security of tenure
and constitutional right to due process in not even serving
them with a written notice of termination which would recite
any valid or just cause for their dismissal. Respondents were
merely told that their services are terminated.

3 Nate Casket Maker v. Elias V. Arango

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Nate Casket Maker v. Elias V. Arango

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Nate Casket Maker v. Elias V. Arango

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[3] NATE CASKET MAKER v. ELIAS V.

ARANGO employee, and it will not countenance any attempt to subvert

You might also like