19

ZAMUDIO versus NLRC

GR NO. 76723 March 25, 1990

FACTS:

Workers rendered services essential for the cultivation of owner’s farm. While the
services were not continuous in the sense that they were not rendered everyday
throughout the year, as is the nature of farm work, petitioners had never stopped working
for respondent from year to year from the time he hired them to the time he dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not employee-employer relationship exists between the farm workers and
the owner

SUPREME COURT RULING:

The nature of their employment as “Pakyao” basis, does not make petitioner
independent contractors. Pakyao workers are considered employees as long as the
employer exercises control over the means by which such workers are to perform their
work inside private respondents farm, the latter necessarily exercised control over the
performed by workers.

The seasonal nature of the work does not detract from the conclusion that employer-
employee relationship exists. Seasonal workers whose work is not merely for the duration
of the season, but who are rehired every working season are considered regular
employees. The absence of the worker’s names in the payroll does not preclude the
finding of an employer-employee relationship between them. Omission of workers in the
payroll was not within their control, they had no hand in the preparation of the payroll.