Case Digest (G.R. No. 235315)
Facts:
Henry T. Paragele, et al. v. GMA Network, Inc., G.R. No. 235315, July 13, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are thirty-one (31) individuals (mostly camera operators and assistant camera operators) who filed a consolidated Complaint for regularization later converted into one for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary/wages, and regularization against GMA Network, Inc. They alleged long-standing engagement as camera crews for various GMA television programs, were paid per taping (typically ₱750–₱1,500), and were dismissed in May 2013; one petitioner (Roxin Lazaro) had the longest aggregate service record among the co-complainants, and one (Adonis S. Ventura) was said by GMA to have been engaged under a “Talent Agreement” for a fixed term.Before the Labor Arbiter, Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas dismissed the consolidated complaint on December 16, 2014 for failure to prove an employer-employee relationship; hence, no illegal dismissal could be found. On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (March 28, 2014 Decision) reversed in part: it recognized an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and GMA, holding that the camera work was necessary and desirable to GMA’s business, but it declared only Lazaro to have attained regular status under its reading of Article 295 of the Labor Code (finding the others had not rendered “at least one year of service”). The NLRC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (May 21, 2014 Resolution).
Petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals by a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals (Third Division) dismissed the Rule 65 petition on March 3, 2017 and denied reconsideration (October 26, 2017), upholding the NLRC’s view that while an employer-employee relationship existed, most petitioners were not regular employees because they had not rendered the one-year period the NLRC treated as necessary. Petitioners then filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the Co...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did an employer-employee relationship exist between the petitioners and GMA Network, Inc.?
- Assuming such relationship, were the petitioners regular employees of GMA?
- Assuming they were regular employees, were the petitioners illegally dismissed and wh...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)