Badge: Words and Phrases – Proviso, dismissal, regular, casual, project employees, agricultural workers

Caption: Mercado et.al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, GR 79869, 5 September 1991, Padilla[J]

Syllabus: Definition of the following: regular, casual, project employees

Facts: Petitioners, who have already worked for several years, were dismissed as agricultural workers of
the NLRC’s sugar land. The respondent denied that petitioners were regular employees alleging that
their services were engaged through 'mandarols' or supply workers to do a particular phase of the
agricultural work. As a result, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter
held that the petitioners were not regular employees and the NLRC affirmed this ruling.

Issue: W/N the petitioners are regular farm workers

Ruling: No, they are not regular but project or seasonal employees. A project employee is one whose
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion has been determined
at the time of engagement, or where work or service is seasonal in nature and employment is for the
duration of the season. As such, the termination of employment cannot be considered as illegal
dismissal. The petitioners are free to contract their services to work for other farm owners.
The general rule is that the office of a proviso is to qualify or modify only the phrase
immediately preceding it or restrain or limit the generality of the clause that it immediately follows.
Thus, it has been held that a proviso is to be construed with reference to the immediately preceding
part of the provision to which it is attached, and not to the statute itself or to other sections thereof. The
only exception to this rule is where the clear legislative intent is to restrain or qualify not only the phrase
immediately preceding it (the proviso) but also earlier provisions of the statute or even the statute itself
as a whole.

Fallo: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
affirming that of the Labor Arbiter, under review, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.