Case Digest (G.R. No. 11196)
Facts:
In Farley Fulache, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No. 183810, January 21, 2010), petitioners Farley Fulache, Manolo Jabonero, David Castillo, Jeffrey Lagunzad, Magdalena Malig-on Bigno, Francisco Cabas, Jr., Harvey Ponce and Alan C. Almendras filed in June 2001 two consolidated complaints for regularization, unfair labor practice and money claims against ABS-CBN’s Cebu station. They alleged exclusion from the 1999–2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) despite over a year of service. Labor Arbiter Julie C. Rendoque in January 2002 held them to be regular employees, not independent contractors, entitled to statutory benefits. ABS-CBN appealed to the NLRC, maintaining they were “talents” without security of tenure. While that appeal was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Cresente Atinen (drivers) for refusing to sign contracts with a service contractor. The arbiter in April 2003 ruled the contracting-out valid, declaring theCase Digest (G.R. No. 11196)
Facts:
- Antecedents
- Regularization Case
- In June 2001, petitioners (drivers, cameramen, editors, production assistants) filed complaints for regularization, unfair labor practice, and money claims against ABS-CBN Cebu station, alleging they were excluded from the 1999–2002 CBA though they rendered over one year of service.
- Labor Arbiter Rendoque (Jan 17, 2002) ruled petitioners were regular employees, not independent contractors, entitled to regular-employee benefits. ABS-CBN appealed. The NLRC (Dec 15, 2004) affirmed regularization with modifications, granting CBA benefits; on reconsideration (Mar 24, 2006) it reinstated the arbiter’s decision.
- Illegal Dismissal Case
- While the regularization appeal was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed five drivers for refusing to sign contracts with service contractor Able Services, claiming organizational redundancy.
- Labor Arbiter Rendoque (Apr 21, 2003) upheld contracting-out but found dismissals due to authorized redundancy, awarding separation pay. The NLRC (Dec 15, 2004) reversed, ruling dismissals illegal and awarding backwages; on reconsideration (Mar 24, 2006) it reinstated the arbiter’s decision.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenged the NLRC’s refusal to grant CBA benefits, refusal to reinstate certain drivers, and denial of damages and attorney’s fees.
- CA Decision (Mar 25, 2008) held petitioners waived CBA benefits issue, upheld redundancy dismissals for the four drivers (Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad), awarded only separation pay, and denied other claims. Reconsideration was denied (July 8, 2008).
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Whether the petition raises only questions of law under Rule 45 (certiorari).
- Whether the NLRC gravely abused discretion by reinstating the labor arbiter’s decisions and by denying the petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration.
- Substantive Issues
- Whether petitioners, as declared regular rank-and-file employees, are covered by the 1999–2002 CBA and thus entitled to its benefits and privileges.
- Whether the dismissal of drivers Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, and Lagunzad was illegal and attended by bad faith, warranting reinstatement, backwages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)