G.R. No. 242875 - Dela Rosa vs. ABS-CBN Corporation

In 2002, petitioner Augorio A. Dela Rosa was hired by respondent ABS-CBN Corporation, a corporation engaged in television and radio broadcasting, as a video editor at an hourly rate of P230.00.
Petitioner was repeatedly rehired for the same position under various fixed-term contracts that ostensibly precluded him from acquiring regular, tenured status.
Evidence shows that petitioner’s employment spanned several years through successive contracts—even though the contracts were labeled “fixed-term,” his continuous engagement indicated a regular employment relationship.

In 2013, petitioner reported for work while intoxicated.
During the said reporting, he was involved in an incident where he allegedly placed his hand inside a female co-worker’s pants and touched her buttocks after attempting to hug and kiss her.
On August 23, 2013, respondent issued a show cause memorandum to petitioner regarding the incident, prompting petitioner to submit an answer on August 28, 2013, claiming that the incident was accidental due to a loss of balance.
Subsequent administrative hearings were conducted on October 9, 2013, January 23, 2014, and March 3, 2014, allowing petitioner to present his evidence and testimony.

On September 1, 2015, respondent served petitioner a memorandum informing him of the decision to impose the penalty of dismissal, citing his acts of reporting to work while intoxicated and committing misconduct against a female co-worker.
Respondent contended that the termination could not actually be imposed on petitioner’s then-current program contract (dated March 16, 2015 to September 15, 2015) because his earlier contract (dated August 16, 2013 to December 31, 2013) had already expired.
Notwithstanding the technicalities regarding the contract expiry, the decision to dismiss was entered into petitioner’s records.

Aggrieved by the termination and the manner of its effectuation, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal as well as claims for underpayment (holiday pay, salary/wages, 13th month pay), separation pay, night shift differential, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner maintained that his dismissal—for being labeled as “end of contract” despite evidence of serious misconduct—was illegal and that he was entitled to backwages and separation pay.
In contrast, respondent argued that petitioner’s employment was for a fixed period, automatically ceasing on September 15, 2015, and further maintained that dismissal was justified on grounds of grave misconduct.

The LA found that petitioner was a regular employee given his continuous engagement for the same position over several years.
Petitioner’s dismissal was ruled illegal because termination “by end of contract” did not constitute a just cause under the Labor Code.
The LA ordered respondent to pay backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; however, certain claims were dismissed as lacking merit.

The NLRC affirmed the LA’s finding of illegal dismissal but modified the awards, notably deleting the moral and exemplary damages.
The NLRC opined that the fixed-term contract was unjustified, and continuous engagement without interruption rendered petitioner a regular employee.

Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling (June 19, 2018 and subsequent Resolution on October 22, 2018):

The CA granted petition for certiorari and nullified the NLRC’s findings, reversing the ruling that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
It held that petitioner was validly dismissed for a just cause after being found guilty of serious misconduct.
The CA ruled that all procedural requirements, including notice and hearing, were satisfied despite the technicality with the fixed-term contract.

Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner was legally dismissed for a just cause despite the earlier findings by the NLRC that the dismissal was illegal due to procedural infirmities.
Whether petitioner was engaged as a fixed-term or a regular employee and the ramifications of such characterization regarding security of tenure under Philippine labor law.
Whether the failure to furnish a second written notice of termination (required to inform the employee of the totality of the circumstances and final decision) amounted to a violation of petitioner’s right to procedural due process.