Federation of Free Farmers vs CA September 10, 1981
Facts: Four separate separate petitions of the respective parties concerned concerned for the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G! "o #$%98&!, entitled Federation of Free Farmers, et al vs 'ictorias (illin) Co, *nc, et al of Au)ust 1%,19$+ he appellate court held that notwithstandin) the provisions of Section 9, in relation to Section 1 of the Su)ar Act of 19+%, !epublic Act 809, providin) that of an- increase in the share of the proceeds of milled su)arcane and derivatives obtained b- the planters from the centrals in an- su)ar millin) district in the .hilippines, /0 of said increase shall correspond to and should be paid b- the planters to their respective laborers, the laborers of the planters affiliated to the 'ictorias (illin) istrict who are members of or represented b- the Federation of Free Farmers, one of the petitioners, have not been full- paid their share thus provided b- law, correspondin) to crop -ears 19++ to 19$#, in spite of clear evidence in the record showin) that the increase of # in the share of the .lanters, 'ictorias (illin) istrict, correspondin) to all the -ears since the enforcement of the aforementioned Act had alread- been paid b- petitioner 'ictorias (illin) Co, *nc to said planters he Court of Appeals further found that even the shares of the laborers correspondin) to crop -ears 19+%&19++, when b- operation of the Act, the increase was 10, had not been paid he appellate court rendered 2ud)ment holdin) the planters of the district and 'ictorias (illin) Co, *nc 2ointl- and severall- liable to the said laborers for all said alle)ed unpaid amounts he four parties involved in the case were the F33!A*4", the .5A"3!S 6in behalf of all planters in the 'ictorias district7, two individual planters 6Santos and irol7, and Central 6'ictorias7, and each of them filed different assi)nment of errors on behalf of the rulin) of the Court of Appeals Amon) these these errors, errors, the court court had alread- resolved a number of these in relation relation to the case Asociacion de A)ricultores de alisa-&Sila-, alisa-&Sila-, *nc vs alisa-&Sila- (illin) Co ith re)ard to the case of the constitutionalit- of !A "o 809, it was held constitution as it was founded b- the le)islation not onl- on police power but also on the social welfare mandates of the Constitution *t was also stated in the rulin) in alisa-&Sila- that the prereuisite of absence of millin) a)reements for the application of Sec1 of the act does not refer eclusivel- to the epiration of the then eistin) contracts but even to future failure of centrals and planters to enter into new contracts, and that in said new contracts, the- could provide
for a ratio of sharin) different from the stipulated in Sec 1, provided that an- increase of their share in the proceeds of millin) that the .5A"3!S would )et /0 thereof must be paid b- them to their laborers Another issue resolved throu)h the courts was the validit- of the Amicable Settlement& Compromise A)reement between 'ictorias and the .lanters *t was present in such A)reement that the share of /0� between the compan- and planters, respectivel-, were distributed and it was the planters who were to distribute the share of the laborers he uestion of how the laborers were compensated and the liabilit- of the three )roups to the laborers were now at hand *ssue;s: hether the CA is correct in holdin) that the 5A<4!3!S are entitled to the pa-ment of /0 of the # increase paid b- '*C4!*AS to the .5A"3!S ever- crop -ear hether '*C4!*AS and the .5A"3!S have a 2oint and several solidar- liabilit- on the amounts due to the 5A<4!3!S !ulin): *n the first issue, the Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA with re)ard to the pa-ment of /0 of the # increase to the 5A<4!3!S, ever- crop -ear, from 19++&+/ to 19$=&$#, includin) the sum of .180,/$9=8 which was a balance of the share unpaid to the 5aborers 610 of their reserve actuall- intended for such laborers7 his was part of the + (illion pesos due and paid to the laborers, accordin) to the stipulation of the Amicable Settlement&Compromise A)reement As for the second issue, the court states that !A 809, does not impose upon the centrals, whether epressl- or impliedl-, an- 2oint and several liabilit- with the planters fro the share which the Act apportions for the laborers of the planters, since it is the responsibilit- eclusivel- of the planters to pa- their laborers after the- have been )iven b- the central what is due them he inherent nature of the obli)ation of the planters, that of pa-in) their own laborers, has never been from the inception of the su)ar industr- up to the present, solidar- with the Centrals
