Title
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Hilario
Case
G.R. No. 193136
Decision Date
Jul 10, 2019
ABS-CBN and CCI found jointly liable for illegal dismissal after CCI’s closure was deemed a ploy to circumvent labor laws, with DWVEI continuing operations; separation pay awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193136)

Petitioner

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in international and local television/radio broadcasting.

Respondents

• Honorato C. Hilario – Hired by CCI as Designer on March 6, 1995; promoted to Set Controller; P9,973.24 monthly salary as of October 5, 2003
• Dindo B. Banting – Hired by CCI as Metal Craftsman in April 1999; promoted to Assistant Set Controller; P8,820.73 monthly salary as of October 5, 2003

Key Dates

• 1995 – Incorporation of CCI; abolition of ABS-CBN Scenic Department; CCI engagement by petitioner
• March 6, 1995 & April 1999 – Respondents’ hiring dates
• June 30, 2003 – Ty’s retirement and consultancy agreement with petitioner
• July 15, 2003 – CCI board approves cessation of operations effective October 5, 2003
• September 4–5, 2003 – Notices of cessation served on respondents
• September 24, 2003 – Illegal dismissal complaint filed before NLRC
• March 1, 2006 – Labor Arbiter decision of illegal dismissal
• June 30, 2008 – NLRC decision affirming Labor Arbiter
• March 4, 2010 & July 29, 2010 – Court of Appeals decision and denial of reconsideration
• September 2, 2015 – Death of respondent Hilario during pendency of appeal
• July 10, 2019 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Guarantee of security of tenure
• Labor Code, Article 279 (security of tenure) and Article 298 (bona fide cessation of operations)
• Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil

Factual Background

ABS-CBN’s in-house Scenic Department was replaced in 1995 by CCI, a corporation formed by Edmund Ty and key ABS-CBN officers to provide set design and prop construction. Respondents were regular CCI employees. Upon Ty’s retirement and concurrent consultancy with ABS-CBN, CCI’s board resolved to cease operations effective October 5, 2003. Respondents received separation pay and executed quitclaims. Petitioner then engaged Ty’s new company, DWVEI, for the same services. Respondents filed for illegal dismissal, alleging the closure was a subterfuge to circumvent their security of tenure.

Labor Arbiter’s Decision

The Labor Arbiter (March 1, 2006) held that CCI’s cessation was a ruse to evade Labor Code protections. It found ABS-CBN and CCI jointly liable, ordered reinstatement of respondents with full backwages from October 2003 to December 2005, plus meal allowances (less quitclaim amounts).

NLRC’s Decision

The NLRC (June 30, 2008) affirmed the Labor Arbiter, treating ABS-CBN and CCI as a single entity due to petitioner’s control over CCI. It directed immediate reinstatement and compliance within ten days.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

The CA (March 4, 2010) upheld illegal dismissal but modified the award: quitclaim amounts to be deducted from backwages, computed from October 5, 2003 until actual reinstatement. Reconsideration was denied on July 29, 2010.

Issues Presented

  1. Validity of respondents’ termination for cessation of business operations
  2. Joint and several liability of petitioner with CCI
  3. Appropriateness of reinstatement under circumstances

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Bona Fide Cessation

Under Article 298, valid cessation requires: (a) one-month written notice to DOLE and employees; (b) bona fide intent; and (c) payment of statutory separation pay. Although CCI complied with notice and pay requirements, the closure lacked bona fide character. Evidence showed that soon after CCI’s shutdown, petitioner engaged DWVEI—Ty’s new company—to perform identical functions, and rehired most CCI personnel, indicating a scheme to evade labor protections. The uniform findings of bad faith by the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA enjoy substantial evidence and govern.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Piercing the Corporate Veil

The Court applied the alter-ego doctrine: CCI was organized, managed, and dissolved under petitioner’s control, served petitioner’s exclusive needs, and shared directors/stockholders. Ty was treated as a regular employee of both entities. These fact

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.