Dear PAO,

Since 2010, I have been providing laundry services at a mining firm’s executive staff house, which accommodates company guests, officers, and employees. In late 2024, I slipped and injured my back while carrying laundry baskets. After taking a medical leave, the management refused to let me return to work. Instead, they offered me a lump-sum payment of P5,000 in exchange for my resignation, claiming that, as a laundry worker assigned to the staff house, I am merely a domestic helper and, therefore, not entitled to regular employment benefits, including separation pay. I refused the offer because I believe I deserve better treatment after years of service. Are workers assigned to a company staff house like me considered regular employees or merely house helpers under the law?

Luisa

Dear Luisa,

The distinction between a domestic helper and a regular employee does not depend on the specific physical tasks performed by the concerned person, but rather on where the service is rendered and who the recipient of such service is. The Supreme Court defined this distinction in Apex Mining Company, Inc. vs. Candido, G.R. No. 94951, April 22, 1991, penned by Associate Justice Emilio A. Gancayco, ruling that:

“Under Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended, the terms ‘househelper’ or ‘domestic servant’ are defined as follows:

“The term ‘househelper’ as used herein is synonymous to the term ‘domestic servant’ and shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders services in and about the employer’s home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer’s family.

“The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such househelper or domestic servant who is employed in the employer’s home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer’s family. Such definition covers family drivers, domestic servants, laundry women, yayas, gardeners, houseboys and other similar househelps.

“The definition cannot be interpreted to include househelp or laundrywomen working in staffhouses of a company, like petitioner who attends to the needs of the company’s guest and other persons availing of said facilities. By the same token, it cannot be considered to extend to the driver, houseboy, or gardener exclusively working in the company, the staffhouses and its premises. They may not be considered as within the meaning of a “househelper” or “domestic servant” as above-defined by law.”

The high court further emphasized in this case that the mere fact that a worker is employed within the business premises or staff houses, serving company guests, officers, and employees, warrants the conclusion that such a worker is a regular employee and not a mere family househelper.

Applying the foregoing to your situation, your work was performed in the company’s executive staff house, and your services directly benefited the company’s operations and its guests, rather than the personal household of a private employer. Accordingly, you are legally classified as a regular employee. Your employer’s contention that you are merely a domestic helper or househelper simply because you perform laundry services is without legal basis.

As a regular employee, you are entitled to the rights and benefits guaranteed under the Labor Code, including security of tenure and all other benefits provided by law. Consequently, your company cannot simply dismiss you without just or authorized cause and without observance of due process. Whether you are entitled to separation pay, however, will depend on the specific legal ground, if any, for the termination of your employment.

We hope that we were able to answer your query. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your unwavering trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].