G.R. No. 164652 - Dumpit-Murillo vs. Court of Appeals

On October 2, 1995, petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was hired by the Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) as a newscaster and co-anchor for the news program *Balitang-Balita* under a three-month Talent Contract No. NT95-1805.
This engagement continued through repeated renewals via successive Talent Contracts (NT95-1915, NT96-3002, NT98-4984, NT99-5649), spanning approximately four years.
Petitioner also rendered services under the program "Live on Five."

On September 30, 1999, the last talent contract expired.
Two weeks after expiration, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Javier, ABC’s Vice President for News and Public Affairs, expressing interest in renewing her contract, conditional upon a salary increase.
Thereafter, petitioner ceased reporting to work. On November 5, 1999, petitioner sent another letter to Mr. Javier stating she would consider the absence of a formal response by November 8, 1999, as constructive dismissal.

A month later, petitioner demanded reinstatement, unpaid wages from September 1 to October 20, 1999, full backwages, 13th month pay, vacation/sick/service incentive leaves, and other benefits as a regular employee. ABC responded that checks for some talent fees had been processed but denied other claims.
On December 20, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal and nonpayment of various benefits against ABC, Mr. Javier, and Mr. Edward Tan before the NLRC.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship;
The talent contracts were void;
Petitioner was a regular employee illegally dismissed; and
Petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with backwages or separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

The NLRC’s decision detailed the monetary awards as well as the option to choose reinstatement or separation pay.

ABC filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was initially dismissed for procedural defects but later reinstated.
The CA ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and reversed the NLRC decision.
The CA held petitioner was a fixed-term employee, not entitled to security of tenure protection, and thus was not illegally dismissed.

Petitioner filed a petition for review raising issues involving the reviewability of the CA’s factual findings, the invalidity of pro-forma contracts, the creation of employer-employee relationship due to repeated renewals, and denial of procedural due process in the dismissal.

Whether this Court can review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals in the present case.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that petitioner was a fixed-term employee and not entitled to regularization and security of tenure despite repeated contract renewals.
Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed without due process, entitling her to reinstatement and monetary claims under labor laws.