Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84211:59753&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:29:40+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 179640, March 18, 2015 - HACIENDA CATAYWA/MANUEL VILLANUEVA, owner, JOEMARIE VILLANUEVA, manager, MANCY AND SONS ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioners, v. ROSARIO LOREZO, Respondent.
HACIENDA CATAYWA/MANUEL VILLANUEVA, owner, JOEMARIE VILLANUEVA, manager, MANCY AND SONS ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioners, v. ROSARIO LOREZO, Respondent.
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari dated September 28, 2007 of petitioner Hacienda Cataywa, Manuel Villanueva, et al., (petitioners) seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions, dated October 17, 20061 and August 10, 2007,2 respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Resolution and Order, dated October 12, 2005 and March 8, 2006, respectively, of the Social Security Commission, ordering petitioners to pay jointly and severally all delinquent contributions, 3% penalty per month of delayed payment and damages to respondent Rosario Lorezo.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Commission finds, and so holds, that Rosario M. Lorezo was a regular employee subject to compulsory coverage of Hda. Cataywa/Manuel Villanueva/ Mancy and Sons Enterprises, Inc. within the period of 1970 to February 25, 1990. In view thereof, the aforenamed respondents are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally, within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, all delinquent contributions within the proven employment period computed in accordance with the then prevailing minimum wage (at 11 months per year) in the amount of P8,293.90, the 3% per month penalty on the delayed payment of contributions in the amount of P59,786.10 (computed as of September 9, 2005), pursuant to Section 22 of the SS Law and the damages in the amount of P32,356.21 for misrepresentation of the real date of employment, pursuant to Section 24 (b) of the said statute.
The SSS, on the other hand, is ordered to pay (subject to existing rules and regulations) petitioner Rosario M. Lorezo her retirement benefit, upon the filing of the claim therefor, and to inform this Commission of its compliance herewith.
Signatory to the Verification failed to attach his authority to sign for and [in] behalf of the other Petitioners.
Petitioners argues that the CA has been too rigid in the application of the rules of procedure in dismissing the appeal without evaluation of the merits.
At the outset, it is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts and will not weigh evidence all over again.15 However, considering the issues raised which can be resolved on the basis of the pleadings and documents filed, and the fact that respondent herself has asked this Court for early resolution, this Court deems it more practical and in the greater interest of justice not to remand the case to the CA but, instead, to resolve the controversy once and for all.
Petitioners are of the opinion that the SSC committed reversible error in making conclusions founded on speculations and surmises that respondent worked from 1970 to February 25, 1990. Petitioners argue that the SSC did not give credence nor weight at all to the existing SSS Form R-1A and farm bookkeeper Wilfredo Ibalobor. Petitioners insist that after thirty long years, all the records of the farm were already destroyed by termites and elements, thus, they relied on the SSS Form R-1A as the only remaining source of information available. Petitioners also alleged that respondent was a very casual worker.
It was settled that there is no particular form of evidence required to Drove the existence of the employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove such relationship may be admitted. This may entirely be testimonial.16 If only documentary evidence would be required to demonstrate the relationship, no scheming employer would be brought before the bar of justice.17 Petitioners erred in insisting that, due to passage of time, SSS Form R-1A is the only remaining source of information available to prove when respondent started working for them. However, such form merely reflected the time in which the petitioners reported the respondent for coverage of the SSS benefit. They failed to substantiate their claim that it was only in 1978 that respondent reported for work.
The nature of the services performed and not the duration thereof, is determinative of coverage under the law.25 To be exempted on the basis of casual employment, the services must not merely be irregular, temporary or intermittent, but the same must not also be in connection with the business or occupation of the employer.26 Thus, it is erroneous for the petitioners to conclude that the respondent was a very casual worker simply because the SSS form revealed that she had 16 months of contributions. It does not, in any way, prove that the respondent performed a job which is not in connection with the business or occupation of the employer to be considered as casual employee.
A reading of the records would reveal that petitioners failed to dispute the allegation that the respondent performed hacienda work, such as planting sugarcane point, fertilizing, weeding, replanting dead sugarcane fields and routine miscellaneous hacienda work.29 They merely alleged that respondent was a very casual worker because she only rendered work for 16 months.30 Thus, respondent is considered a regular seasonal worker and not a casual worker as the petitioners alleged.
Petitioners also assert that the sugarcane cultivation covers only a period of six months, thus, disproving the allegation of the respondent that she worked for 11 months a year for 25 years. This Court has classified farm workers as regular seasonal employees who are called to work from time to time and 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.31 Respondent, therefore, as a farm worker is only a seasonal employee. Since petitioners provided that the cultivation of sugarcane is only for six] months, respondent cannot be considered as regular employee during the months when there is no cultivation.
Based on the foregoing facts and evidence on record, petitioners are liable for delinquent contributions. It being proven by sufficient evidence that respondent started working for the hacienda in 1970, it follows that petitioners are liable for deficiency in the SSS contributions.
The imposition upon and payment by the delinquent employer of the three percent (3%) penalty for the late remittance of premium contributions is mandatory and cannot be waived by the System. The law merely gives to the Commission the power to prescribe the manner of paying the premiums. Thus, the power to remit or condone the penalty for late remittance of premium contributions is not embraced therein.32 Petitioners erred in alleging that the imposition of penalty is not proper.
Petitioners also insist that the award of damages for misrepresentation is without basis. This Court disagrees.
Lastly, petitioners aver that there is no legal basis to pierce the veil of corporation entity.
This Court agrees with the petitioners that there is no need to pierce the corporate veil. Respondent failed to substantiate her claim that Mancy and Sons Enterprises, Inc. and Manuel and Jose Marie Villanueva are one and the same. She based her claim on the SSS form wherein Manuel Villanueva appeared as employer. However, this does not prove, in any way, that the corporation is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or when it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues, warranting that its separate and distinct personality be set aside. Also, it was not alleged nor proven that Mancy and Sons Enterprises, Inc. functions only for the benefit of Manuel Villanueva, thus, one cannot be an alter ego of the other.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated September 28, 2007 of petitioners Hda. Cataywa, Manuel Villanueva, et al. is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the resolution by the Social Security Commission is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the delinquent contributions should be computed as six months per year of service, and the case against Manuel and Jose Marie Villanueva be DISMISSED.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring, rollo, pp. 183-186.
10CMTC International Marketing Corporation v. BHAGIS International Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 170488, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 469, 474, citing Osmeña v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 188818, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 654, 660. 11 162 Phil. 731(1976).
11Obut v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 744.
13Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 498 Phil. 808, 821 (2005).
15Gapayao v. Fulo, SSS and SSC, G.R. No. 193493, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA485, 497.
16Martinez v. NLRC et al., 339 Phil. 176, 183 (1997).
117Vinoya v. NLRC et al., 381 Phil. 460, 479 (2000).
20 Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - the provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service whether such! service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists.
21Gapayao vs. Fulo, SSS and SSC, supra note 15, at 499, citing Benares v. Pancho, 497 Phil. 181, 189-190 (2005), citing Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Faburada, 419 Phil. 147, 155 (2001).
23Id. citing AAG Trucking and/or Alex Ang Gaeid v. Yuag, G.R. No. 195033, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 91, 102.
24Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food & General Trade, 444 Phil. 587, 596 (2003).
25 Social Security Law, Republic Act No. 1161 as amended by RA No. 8282.
27 257 Phil. 626 (1989).
28De Leon v. NLRC, supra, at 632-633.
31Gapayao v. Fulo, SSS and SSC, supra note 15.
33Supra note 25, Section 24 (b).
34 604 Phil. 184 (2009).
35Rivera v. United Laboratories, supra, at 213.
36R & E Transport, Inc. v. Latag, 467 Phil. 355, 367 (2004).
37Arnold v. Willets and Patterson, Ltd., 44 Phil. 634, 645 (1923).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.