Case Summary (G.R. No. 176419)
Key Dates
• Dates of hire: December 1993–March 1997
• Complaint filed: July 19, 1999, with NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII, Cebu City
• Labor Arbiter’s decision: August 24, 2000
• NLRC decision: March 2, 2001 (remanded for computation)
• Court of Appeals decision: September 8, 2006; resolution denying reconsideration: January 22, 2007
• Supreme Court decision: November 27, 2013
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution: labor’s security of tenure, state policy to afford full protection to labor
• Labor Code (Articles 279–280): definitions of regular, project, casual, fixed-term employment; security of tenure; entitlement to separation pay, night shift differential
• Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 19, s. 1993: reporting requirements for project employment in construction industry (analogized in broadcasting context)
• Jurisprudence on project versus regular employment, fixed-term contracts (Brent School v. Zamora; ALU-TUCP cases), and award of attorney’s fees
Factual Background
Respondents performed integral tasks for petitioner’s broadcasting operations:
- Manning Technical Operations Center (airing and logging commercials)
- Transmitter/VTR duties (tape preparation, commercial airing, station promos, generator start-up)
- Equipment maintenance (checking, generator warming, refilling lubricants)
- Camerawork
After filing their complaint, respondents were confronted by management, barred from reporting for work without explanation, and repeated requests to return were ignored.
Procedural History
The Labor Arbiter dismissed illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice claims but ordered 13th-month pay. On appeal, the NLRC reversed, declaring respondents as regular employees entitled to separation pay (one month per year of service), 13th-month pay, night shift differential, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees, and remanded for computation. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s certiorari petition. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue on Employment Classification
Whether respondents were regular employees entitled to security of tenure or project/fixed-term employees excluded from such protection. Under Article 280, employment is deemed regular if the tasks are usually necessary or desirable to the employer’s business, unless the work is for a specific project with predetermined scope and duration, or seasonal in nature. Fixed-term contracts depend solely on an agreed day certain for termination.
Nature of Project Employment
Two recognized types of projects under Article 280 jurisprudence:
- A distinct, separate undertaking within the employer’s usual business (e.g., a specific construction project)
- An undertaking outside the employer’s regular business (e.g., furnace repairs by a glass manufacturer)
Project employees must be hired for a clearly identified project with predefined scope and duration; employers must report project completion and terminations to the DOLE.
Application to Respondents
Respondents’ tasks—airing commercials, operating transmitters, maintaining equipment, camerawork—are inseparable from the core business of a broadcasting company and lack distinct project boundaries. Petitioner’s failure to report any project completion or termination to the DOLE further demonstrates that respondents were not project employees. Moreover, respondents rendered in excess of one year of continuous service, confirming regular status by operation of law.
Fixed-Term Employment Analysis
Fixed-term employment hinges on an agreed day certain for termination. Under Brent School v. Zamora, such terms are valid only if negotiated knowingly and voluntarily on equal footing, without moral dominance or circumvention of tenure rights. Here, respondents repeatedly signed voucher-form contracts as “pinch-hitters” under unequal bargaining conditions, re-engaged ad infinitum from 1996 to 1999 to meet petitioner’s routine staffing needs—an abuse of fixed-term arrangements precluding regular status.
Illegal Dismissal and Security of Tenure
As regular employees under Article 279, respondents could be dismissed only for just or authorized causes. Petitioner failed to establish any lawful ground for termination. Their exclusion from the workplace following complaint filing constitu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176419)
Facts of the Case
- Private respondents (Pabriga, Arias, Campo, Lagahit, Catubig) were hired between December 1993 and May 1997 as television technicians by petitioner GMA Network, Inc.
- Their duties included:
• Manning the Technical Operations Center (airing and logging of commercials)
• Acting as Transmitter/VTR men (preparing and airing tapes, logging transmitter readings, operating generator during outages)
• Performing maintenance (checking equipment, servicing generator)
• Acting as cameramen - On July 19, 1999, respondents filed a complaint with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII, Cebu City, alleging miserable working conditions.
- Petitioner’s managers confronted and then barred respondents from reporting for work without notice of cause.
- Respondents wrote letters on August 13 and September 15, 1999 requesting reinstatement; these were ignored or admitted only to non-payment of benefits.
- On October 8, 1999, respondents amended their complaint to add claims of unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, damages, and attorney’s fees.
- A mandatory conference on September 23, 1999, failed; position papers were filed in November 1999 and March 2000.
Labor Arbiter Decision
- Dated August 24, 2000:
• Dismissed illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice claims for lack of proof
• Held petitioner liable for proportionate 13th month pay only, totaling ₱28,826.14 plus 10% attorney’s fees
• All other claims dismissed
NLRC Decision
- Reversed Labor Arbiter on status and reliefs:
• Declared respondents regular employees until project cessation, entitled to separation pay at one month’s salary per year of service
• Awarded 13th month pay, night shift differential, and service incentive leave pay
• Assessed 10% attorney’s fees on all awards
• Remanded to Regional Arbitration Branch for computation and additional documentary production
Court of Appeals Decision
- September 8, 2006: Denied petitioner’s certiorari petition for lack of mer