Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 124 views

    JAIME GAPAYAO vs. JAIME FULO

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    1) Jaime Fulo had worked on Jaime Gapayao's farm from 1983 until his death by electrocution in 1997. 2) Gapayao argued that Fulo was not a regular employee because he did not work regular hours and could work elsewhere. 3) However, a SSS investigation found that Fulo received daily compensation from Gapayao from 1983 to 1997, making him a regular employee. The Supreme Court agreed that seasonal workers can be considered regular employees if they have an ongoing employment relationship with reasonable connection to the employer's business. Therefore, Fulo was a regular employee entitled to SSS benefits despite being a seasonal worker.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    JAIME GAPAYAO vs. JAIME FULO

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    124 views3 pages
    1) Jaime Fulo had worked on Jaime Gapayao's farm from 1983 until his death by electrocution in 1997. 2) Gapayao argued that Fulo was not a regular employee because he did not work regular hours and could work elsewhere. 3) However, a SSS investigation found that Fulo received daily compensation from Gapayao from 1983 to 1997, making him a regular employee. The Supreme Court agreed that seasonal workers can be considered regular employees if they have an ongoing employment relationship with reasonable connection to the employer's business. Therefore, Fulo was a regular employee entitled to SSS benefits despite being a seasonal worker.

    Original Title

    65. JAIME GAPAYAO vs. JAIME FULO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Jaime Fulo had worked on Jaime Gapayao's farm from 1983 until his death by electrocution in 1997. 2) Gapayao argued that Fulo was not a regular employee because he did not work regular hours and could work elsewhere. 3) However, a SSS investigation found that Fulo received daily compensation from Gapayao from 1983 to 1997, making him a regular employee. The Supreme Court agreed that seasonal workers can be considered regular employees if they have an ongoing employment relationship with reasonable connection to the employer's business. Therefore, Fulo was a regular employee entitled to SSS benefits despite being a seasonal worker.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    124 views3 pages

    JAIME GAPAYAO vs. JAIME FULO

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    1) Jaime Fulo had worked on Jaime Gapayao's farm from 1983 until his death by electrocution in 1997. 2) Gapayao argued that Fulo was not a regular employee because he did not work regular hours and could work elsewhere. 3) However, a SSS investigation found that Fulo received daily compensation from Gapayao from 1983 to 1997, making him a regular employee. The Supreme Court agreed that seasonal workers can be considered regular employees if they have an ongoing employment relationship with reasonable connection to the employer's business. Therefore, Fulo was a regular employee entitled to SSS benefits despite being a seasonal worker.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    65. JAIME GAPAYAO vs.

    JAIME FULO
    G.R. No. 193493. June 13, 2013

    FACTS: Jaime Fulo had been working in a farm owned by Jaime Gapayao since 1983. In November 1997, Jaime
    Fulo was electrocuted while working in the said farm. Jaime Fulo died. Thereafter, Rosario Fulo, the widow of
    Jaime Fulo, filed a claim for death benefits before the SSS. It turned out however that Jaime Fulo was never
    registered with the SSS. Eventually, SSS ordered Gapayao, as the employer, to pay the SSS contributions due
    with penalty. Gapayao averred he cannot be made liable to pay the SSS contributions because according to
    him there was no employer-employee relationship between him and the deceased. He argued, among others,
    that the deceased was not his employee because he did not work regular hours as he was only called when
    needed and that Fulo can even look for other jobs elsewhere if he wanted to. In fact, Fulo also worked for
    some other people as he was only an “extra” in the farm; and that petitioner had no control over him.
    Upon the insistence of private respondent that her late husband had been employed by petitioner for 14
    years, the SSS conducted a field investigation to clarify his status of employment. In its field investigation
    report, it enumerated its findings as follows (in connection with the complaint filed by the widow,Mrs. Rosario
    Fulo, hereunder are the findings per interview with Mr. Leonor Delgra, Santiago Bolanos and Amado Gacelo):
    a.) That Mr. Jaime Fulo was an employee of Jaime Gapayao as farm laborer from 1983 to 1997. b.) Mr. Leonor
    Delgra and Santiago Bolanos are co-employees of Jaime Fulo. c.)Mr. Jaime Fulo receives compensation on a
    daily basis ranging from P5.00 to P60.00 from 1983 to 1997.
    The Private Respondent filed a petition before the Social Security Commission seeking to compel the
    Petitioner to pay the SSS contribution so she could avail of the death benefits under the social security
    coverage of SSS. The SSC issued a favorable ruling on the private respondent’s petition. The assailed decision
    was appealed before the CA and it affirmed the decision of SSC.
    ISSUE: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exist since Jaime Fulo is a seasonal worker, thus
    entitles his heirs to the SSS benefits.
    HELD: YES. Jaime Fulo was a regular employee and is entitled to receive social coverage benefits, among
    others. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in ruling that it “does not follow that a person
    who does not observe normal hours of work cannot be deemed an employee.” It is also not material that
    Gapayao never supervised Fulo. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We
    have consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal
    employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is
    such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or
    when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their job, and
    not because of the length of time they have worked. The rule, however, is not absolute. In Hacienda Fatima v.
    National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food & General Trade, 396 SCRA 518 (2003), the Court held that
    seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may not be considered regular employees. Similarly,
    in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, 201 SCRA 332 (1991), it was held that when seasonal employees are free to contract
    their services with other farm owners, then the former are not regular employees. For regular employees to
    be considered as such, the primary standard used is the reasonable connection between the particular
    activity they perform and the usual trade or business of the employer. This test has been explained
    thoroughly in De Leon v. NLRC, 176 SCRA 615 (1989), viz.: The primary standard, therefore, of determining a
    regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee
    in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary
    or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering
    the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its
    entirety. Also if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not
    continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as
    sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the
    employment is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. In
    this case, the number of hours worked is not material.

    IF ASKED: Jurisprudence has identified the three types of employees mentioned under Article 295 [280]: (1)
    regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or
    desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment
    has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been
    determined at the time of their engagement, or those whose work or service is SEASONAL IN NATURE and IS
    PERFORMED FOR THE DURATION OF THE SEASON; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither
    regular nor project employees.

    Pakyaw workers are considered regular employees for as long as their employers have control over them. The
    power of the employer to control the work of the employee is considered the most significant determinant of
    the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This is the so-called control test and is premised on
    whether the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control both the end achieved
    and the manner and means used to achieve that end.” It should be remembered that the control test merely
    calls for the existence of the right to 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.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy