Del Rosario Vs ABS-CBN - GR 202481 - September 8, 2020

3Repttblit of tbe flbiHppiues
~upr~1ne <!ourt
ji[antla.
EN BANC
ALBERT · B. DEL ROSARIO,. . G.R. No. 202481

REYNALDO TUGADE,
ROLANDO BARRON, 'GEORGE
MACASO, · REY I. SANTIAGO, ·
ROBERTO B. DEL CASTILLO,
PAUL VIRAY, ISMAEL DABLO,
TOMMY ANACTA, ISAGANI
TAOATAO, ROLIO ANDREW.
RA.MANO, ARTHUR DUNGOG,
EDWIN SAGUN,.APOLINAR DEL
GRACIA, SENGKLY ESLABRA,
ERIC BIGLANG-AWA,
REYNALDO CRUZ, CARLO
DIONISIO, ERNESTO CRUZ,
LORENZO ALANO, CRISANTO
PANLUBASAN, ROBERTO
SANCHEZ, NELSON LUCAS, and
PHILBERT ACHARON,
Petitioners,
- versus -
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------x
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, G.R. Nos. 202495 &
Petitioner, 202497
-versus -
JOURNALIE ·PAYONAN,
ANTONIO MANUEL, JR.,
.MANUEL MENDOZA, JOSEPH R.
ONG, RIEL A. TEODORO, RAMON
CATAHAN, JR., RONNIE
LOZARES, FERDINAND
MARQUEZ, FERDINAND
SUMERACRUZ, DANTE T. VIDAL,
CEZAR ZEA, RICARDO JOY
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497, 210165, 219125, 222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
CAJOLES, JR., ALEX R. CARLOS,

JHONSCHULTZ CONGSON,
LESLIE REY OLPINDO,
ARMANDO A. RAMOS, ROJVIMEL
V. VILLANUEVA, ENRICO V.
·CASTULO, FRANKIE DOMINGO,
MANUEL CONDE, ANTONIO
IIVIlVIANUEL N. CALLE, OLIVER J.
CHAVEZ, FRANCIS LUBUGUIN,
JEROME B. PRADO, RICHARD T.
SISON, RODERICK N.
RODRIGUEZ, LAURO
CALITISEN, ELMER M.
EVARISTO, GILBERT M.
OMAPAS, CHRISTOPHER
MENDOZA, WILFREDO N.
ZALDUA, RUSSEL M. GALIMA,
MEDEL GOTEL, OSIAS LOPEZ,
.JOSEPH ELPHIN F. LUMBAD,
MARLON MACATANTAN,
JOSEPH ARMAND MAMORNO,
ALFRED CHRISTIAN NUNEZ,
ALAIN PARDO, RONINO
SANTIAGO, JUN TANGALIN,
JONATHAN C. TORIBIO, JERICO
T. ADRIANO, JULIUS T. ADRIANO,
MARI( ANTHONY AGUSTIN,
BENJAMJN C. BENGCO, JR.,
DANILO R BLAZA, GINO REGGIE
BRIONES,. RICKY BULDIA,
NICOMEDES CANALES,
ALFREDO S. CORAY, ROJAY
.PAUL DELA ROSA,
CHRISTOPHER DE LEON, DIXON
DISPO, ANDREW EUGENIO,
JEFFREY ALFRED
EVANGELISTA, ALLAN V.
HERRERA, MICHAEL V. SANTOS,
and ROlVIMIEL M. MATALANG,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
ISMAEL B. DABLO, ROLANDO G.R. No. 210165
S. BARRON, ROBERTO B. DEL
CASTILLO, ALBERT B. DEL
ROSARIO, GEORGE B.
·MACASO, REY I. SANTIAGO,
REYNALDO L. TUGADE, and
'k•
1• I . I' e
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
PAUL . VIRAY, '. .

· Petitioners,
- versus -
CORPORATION and/or
EUGENIO LOPEZ,
Respondents.
x------------------------- .. ---------------x
RICARDO JOY CAJOLES, JR., G.R. No. 219125
ANTONIO IMMANUEL CALLE,
RICHARD SISON and
JOURNALIE PAYONAN,
Petitioners,
- versus -
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
x----------------------------- ·------------x
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, G.R. No. 222057
Petitioner,
- versus -
JOSEPH R. ONG, FERNANDO

LOPEZ, RAYMON REYES and
GARRET CAILLES,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------x
ABS-CBN CORPORATION and G.R. No. 224879
EUGENIO LOPEZ III,
Petitioners,
- versus -
RONNIE B. LOZARES,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------x
ANTONIO BERNARDO S. G.R. No. 225101
PEREZ, JOHN PAUL
PANIZALES, FERDINAND
CRUZ, CHRISTOPHER
lVIENDOZA, DEI'\1NIS REYES,
JUN BENOSA, ROLAND
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
,KRISTOFFER DE GUZMAN,
FREDIERICI( GERLAND
DIZON, RUSSEL GALIMA,
ALFRED CHRISTIAN NUNEZ,·
ROMMEL VILLANUEVA,
moNSCHULTZ CONGSON,
ALEX CARLOS, MICHAEL
TOBIAS, Gl;.RONIMO
BANIQUED, RONALDO SAN
PEDRO, and ERIC PAYCANA,
Petitioners,
- versus -
COURT OF APPEALS- SPECIAL

NINTH DIVISION and ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING
CORPORATION,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, G.R. No . 225874
Petitioner,
Present:
PERALTA,* CJ.,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
CAQlJIOA,
GESMUNDO,
J. REYES, JR.,
- versus - I-IERNANDO,
CARANDANG,*
LAZARO-IAVIER,*
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ,
DELOS, SANTOS,
GAERLAN,* and
BALTAZAR-PADILLA,** JJ.
JOSE ZABALLA III, TAUCER
TYCHE BENZONAN and Pro1nulgated:
FISCHERBOB CASAJE,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------- -· -----x
• No part.
'"* On leave.
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:
This involves eight (8) consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitions may be divided
into tw<? categories - the regularization cases and the illegal dismissal cases.
Regularization Cases
G.R. No. 202481
Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcastin_g Corporation
In Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No.

202481), 1 petitioners-workers seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision2 dated January 27, 2012 and Resolution3 dated June 26, 2012 in CA-
G.R. SP No. 117885, which dismissed their case for regularization.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:
· WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October

29, 2009 and the Resolution dated October 29, 2010, issued by public
respondent NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; the Labor Arbiter's
Decision dated March 26, 2004 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED. 4
G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497
ABS-CB1V Corporation v. Payonan, et al.
In ABS-CBN Corporation v. Payonan, et al. (G.R. Nos. 202495 &

202497),5 ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) seeks the reversal of the CA
Decision6 dated October 28, 2011 and Resolution7 dated June 27, 2012 in CA-
G.R. SP Nos. 108552 and 108976, declaring the workers as regular employees
of ABS-CBN. .
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 202481), v·ol. I, pp. 8-52.

2 Id. at 54-73. Pern1ed by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso
and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
3
Id. at 89-91.
4
Id. at 72.
5
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. 1, pp. 1-248.
6 Rollo (G.R. No~. 202495 & 202497), Vol. III, pp. 1907-1927. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M.
Barrios, with Assoeiate Justic~s Mario L. Guarifia III and Apolinario D. Bmselas, Jr. concmTing.
7 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. IV, pp. 2060-2065. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M.
Barrios, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Boeser concurring.
r I . ~
J Decision G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

202497,210165,219125,2220~7,
224879, 225101 and 225874
WHEREFORE, upon the fm~egoing, the petitions are GRANTED.
In CA-GR SP No. 108552, the Resolutions dated 23 October 2008

and-30.January 2009 of the National Lab9r Relations Commission, Second
Division are ANNULLED AND_.SET ASIDE, and a nevy one rendered
declaring petitioners as regular employees of private respondent and
accordingly entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded to all other
regular employees of private respondent ABS-CBN under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement and/or company policy.
In CA-GR SP No. 108976, the Resolutions dated 18 December 2008

and 23 March 2009 of the National Labor Relations Commission, Third
Division are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter dated 23 June 2008 is reinstated.
SO ORDERED. 8
Illegal Dismissal Cases
G.R. No. 222057
ABS-CBN Corporation v. Ong, et al.

• I
In ABS-CBN Corporation v. Ong, et al. (G.R. No. 222057), 9 ABS-CBN

seeks the reversal of the CA Decision 10 dated February 24, 2015 and 1
Resolution 11 dated December 21, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 122068 where the
CA declared that respondents-workers were regular employees of ABS-CBN
and were illegally dismissed. Consequently, the CA ordered their immediate
reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, coupled
with the pay1nent of their backwages c01nputed frmn the time their salaries
were withheld up to the tilne of their actual reinstatement.. The CA further
awarded 13 th month pay plus attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of the total
monetary award. 12
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: p
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. ABS-

CBN is ordered to immediately reinstate petitioners to their fonner positions
without loss of seniority rights and the payment of [backwages] from the
time their salaries ':Vere withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. If
reinstatement be not feasible, ABS-CBN is ordered to pay complainant[s]
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of ~ervice in
addition to the payment of [backwages], but, it shall be computed from the
time complainant[s'] salary was withheld up to the time of payment thereof.
Likewise, respondents are ordered to pay the accrued 13th month pay for
8
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. lll, p. 1926.
9
Rollo (G.R. No. 222057), pp. 21-106.
10
Id. at 700-713. Penned. by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybanez, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican
and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.
11
Id. at 772-773. Penn~d by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybanez, with Associate Justices Apolinario D.
Bruselas, Jr. and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concm,-ing.
12
Id. at 712.
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
the same periods plus attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of all the monetary
award[ s] to complaipant[s]. The other monetary claims and damages
claimed by complainant[s] are DENIED for failure to substantiate the same.
The case is hereby remanded to the L3:bor Arbiter for the proper
computation of the monetary awards. The NLRC is hereby DIRECTED to
notify this Court of the computation twenty (20) days from notice. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 13
G.R. No. 224879
ABS-CBN Corporation, et al. v. Lozares
InABS-CBNCorporation, etal. v. Lazares (G.R. No. 224879), 14 ABS-

CBN seeks the reversal of the CA Decision 15 dated January 4, 2016 and
Resolution 16 dated May 27, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122~24, which reversed
the National Labor Relations · Commission (NLRC) ruling that dismissed
respondents-workers' cmnplaint for illegal dismissal.
The decretal portion of the assailed CA Decision reads:
We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 25 August 2011, and the

Resolution dated 28 October 2011, issued· by the National Labor Relations
Commission in the consolidated cases docketed as NLRC NCR Case
Numbers 07d10422-10, 08-11773-LO, and 08-11664-10, and rule as follows:
1) we ORDER ABS-CBN Broadc~sting:Corporation and Eugenio Lopez
III to REINSTATE Rom1ie B.- Lozares to his former position with full
backwages, without loss of seniority rights and other employee's benefits,
and to PAY Pl00,000.00_ as moral damages, Pl00,000.00 as ex·emplary
damages, and P20,000.00 as -attorney's fees; xx x.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 17
G~R. No. 225874
ABS-CBN Corporation v. Zaballa Ill, et al.
In ABS-CBN Corporation v. Zaballa III, et al. (G.R. No. 225874), 18

ABS-CBN seeks the reversal of the Decision 19 dated January 12, 2016 and
Resolution20 _dated July 15, 2016 rendered by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
13 Id.
14
Rollo (G.R. No. 224879), pp. 11-62.
15
Id. at 72-80. Penned by Associate Justice Nina q. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Fernanda
Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Laniion concun-it1g.
16
Id. at 82·83 .· .
17
Id. at 79.
18
Rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. I, pp. 10-72.
19
Rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, pp. 715--729. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a
Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla
COllCUITing.
20
Id. at 763-764.
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224819, 225101 and 225 874
131576, which affinned the rulings. of the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the NLRC
that the workers are in fact employees of ABS-CBN. Consequently, the CA
awarded holiday pay, and 13 th 1nonth pay computed three years back from the
filing of the complaint. 21
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

DENIED. The assailed Resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission, Second Division, dated 27 March 2013 and 14 June 2013, are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 22
G.R. No. 219125
Cajoles, Jr., et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
In Cajoles, Jr., et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No.

219125), 23 petitioners-workers pray for the reversal of the CA Decision24
dated August 19, 2014 and Resolution25 dated June 18, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP.
No. 122424. The CA dismissed petitioners-workers complaint for illegal
dismissal, finding that they committed formn shopping by filing a case for
illegal dismissal notwithstanding the pendency of their complaint for
regularization. 26 Thus, the CA dismissed the case without delving into the
merits. 27
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the petition is

DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. The assailed decision of the National
Labor Relations Comn1ission is AFFIRMED. Moreover, petitioners and
counsel are strictly admonished for their blatant disregard of the rule against
forum-shopping and let this be a warning to them that a commission of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED. 28
21
Id. at 727-728.
22
Id. at 728.
23
I - 24
Rollo (G.R. No. 219125), Vol. II, pp. 1347-1359. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with
Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales-Sison
concurring.
25
Id. at 1376-1377.
26
See id. at 1353 and 1358.
27
Id. at 1358.
zs Id.
',., }
p
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495,&

202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
G.R. No. 225101
Perez, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
In Perez, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No.

2251 0 1), 29 petitioners-workers seek the reversal of the assailed CA Decision30
dated January 28, 2016 and Resolution31 dated May 26, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 125868, declaring that there was no_ employer-employee relationship
between the1n and ABS-CBN. 32 The CA likewise opined that ABS-CBN did,
not exercise control over the manner the workers perfmmed their duties33
because all that ABS-CBN was concerned with was the end result and its
conformity with the company's standards. 34
The dispositive p01iion of the assailed CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The

Decision dated May 29, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission
(Special Divisi,on) is AFFIRMED, save for the dismissal of the appeal by
the NLRC (Fifth Division) non-perfection with respect to petitioners
Dizon, Congson, Villanueva and Mendoza. ·
SO ORDERED. 35
G. R. No. 210165
Dablo, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, et al.
In Dab/a, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, et al. (G.R. No:

210165), 36 therein petitioners-workers seek the reversal of the assailed
Decision37 dated April 30, 2013 and Resolution38 dated November 20, 2013
in CA-G.R. SP No. 122635, which dismissed petitioners-workers' complaint
for illegal dismissal. The CA held that petitioners-workers are not regular
employees of ABS-CBN. Accordingly, absent any employment relationship
betweeJ:?. ABS-CBN and the workers, the former may not be held guilty of
illegal dismissal. 39
The dispositive p011ion of the CA Decision states:

29
30
Rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. II, pp. 854-869. Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, with
Associate Justices Amy C Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon
concurring. ·
31
Id. at 899-900.
32
See id. at 864-866.
33
Id. at 867.
34 Id.
35
Id. at 868.
36
37
Id. at 55-66. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Stephen C. '
Cruz and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concun-ing.
38
Id. at 85-87.
39
See id. 64-65 and 86.
j,}
(
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack

of merit.
SO ORDERED. 40
The Antecedents
The following facts are common to the eight petitions:
ABS-CBN, fonnerly known as ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,

is a domestic corporation that owns a wide network of television and radio
stations. It was granted a franchise to operate as a broadcasting company
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7966,41 and was given a license and authority
to operate by the National Telecmmnunications Conunission. This franchise,
however, expired on May 5, 2020. 42 '
On various dates, ABS-CBNhired the services of the following persons

(collectively, "workers"):
MGULARIZATION CASES:43 I
G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497 (ABS-CBNCorporation v. Payonan, et al.)
rNAME: DATE HIRED:
Journalie Payonan October 1997
Antonio Manuel, Jr. August 1999
Manuel A.Mendoza March 1999
Joseph R. Ong September 1999
Riel A. Teodoro 1996
Ramon P. Catahan, Jr. 1998
1'
I
,
1
Romiie Lozares 1996
Ferdinand L. Marquez 1998
Ferdinand C. Sumeracruz July 1997
Dante T. Vidal June 1997
Cezar Z. Zea 1997
Ricardo Joy C. Cajoles, Jr. December 1999
Alex R. Carlos May 1999
Jolmschultz A. Congson December 1999
Leslie Rey S. Olpindo December 1999
Armando A. Ramos December 1999'
Rommel V. Villanueva April 1999
Enrico V. Castulo March 1995
Frankie S. Domingo March 1995
Manuel Conde Febrnary 1997
Antonio Immanuel N. Calle January 1999
Oliver J. Chavez December 1999
40
Id. at 65.
41
AN AC'f GRANTING THE ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT INSTALL
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE PHILIPPiNES AN~
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, March 30, 1995. ,
42
Republic v. ABS-CBN Corporation, G.R. No. 251358, June 23, 2020 (Resolution).
43
Rollo (G.R. No. 202481), Vol. II, pp. 890-892; rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), pp. 3251, 3311-
3315; and rollo (G.R. No. 210165), Vol. I, pp. 12-13.
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
Francis M. Lubugin December 1999

Jerome B. Prado June 2000
Richard T. Sison September 1996
Roderick N. Rodriguez August 1997
Elmer M. Evaristo May 1996
Christopher Mendoza September 1994
Gilbert M. Omapas July 1996
Lauro Calitisen May 1997
Wilfredo Zaldua April 1999
Russel M. Galima April 2001
Medel Gotel June 1998
Osias Lopez August 1999
Joseph Elphin Lumbad May 1999
Marlon Macatantan January 1999 p
Joseph Armand B. Mamorno June 1998

Alfred Christian Nufiez April 1999
Alain Pardo JlUle 2000
Ronifio Santiago May 1999
Jun Tangalin August 1999
Jonathan C. Toribio August 1996
Jerico T. Adriano November 1993
Julius T. Adriano May 1993
Mark Anthony Agustin January 1998
Benjamin C. Bengco, Jr. June 2000
Danilo R. Blaza August 1997
Gino Reggie Briones October 1999
Ricky Beldia May 1999
Nicomedes Canales, Jr. August 1999
Alfredo S. Curay May 1997
Rojay Paul Dela Rosa November 2000
Christopher De Leon August 1999
Dixon Dispo June 1998
Andrew Eugenio January 1998
Jeffrey Alfred Evangelista April1999
Allan V. Herrera January 2002
Michael V. Santos November 2001
Rommel M. Matalang [November 2001
G.R. No. 202481 (Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting

Corporation)
Philbert Acharon September 1999
Lorenzo Alano September 1996
Tommy Anacta November 1995
Rolando Barron August 1999
Eric Biglang-awa June 1999
Ernesto Cruz June 1994
Reynaldo Cruz No date indicated in the records
of the case
Ismael Dablo July 1994
Roberto Del Castillo September l 995
Albert Del Rosario July 1994
Apolinar Dela Gracia March 1995
Carlo Dionisio March 1997
Decision 12 G.R Nos. 202481, 202495'&
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
Arthur Dungog July 1997

Sengkly Eslabra: March 1997
Nelson Lucas February 1999
George Macaso March 1995
Crisanto Panlubasan February 1996
Rolio Andre\\'. Ramano 1992
[Edwin Sagun October 1996
Roberto Sanchez April1997
Rey I. Santiago May 1997
Isagani Taoatao October 1995
Reynaldo L. Tugade July 1994
Paul Viray July 1997
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASES: 44 I

NAME !DATE HIRED POSITION
G.R. No. 222057 (ABS-CBN Corporation v. On~, et aL)

Joseph R. Ong September 1999 Cameraman
Garett Cailles June 1998 Cameraman
Raymon Reyes September 1999 Cameraman
Fernando Lopez November 2000 Cameratnan
G.R. No. 225874 (ABS-CBN Corporation v. Zaballa Ill, et al.)

Jose Zabala III May2003 Lightman
Fischerbob Casaje September 2004 Lightman / Electrician/
Gaffer
Taucer Tyche Benzonan March 2011 Cameraman
I -
G.R. No . 225101 (Perez, et al. v. ABS-CBN BroadcastinJ? Corporation)
Antonio Bernardo Perez January 2002 Senior Video Editor
John Paul Panizales January 2001 Technical
DfrectorNTR Man
Ferdinand Cruz January 2001 Video Engineer/VTR
Man
Christopher Mendoza October 1995 Sound Engineer
Dennis Reyes November 2001 Sound Engineer
JU11 Benosa November 2001 Sound Engineer
Roland Kristoffer De Guzman December 2004 VTRMan
Fredierick Gerland Dizon April 2005 Video Engineer
Russel Galima April 2000 Sound Engineer
Alfred Christian Nunez April 1998 Sound Engineer
Rommel Villanueva January 2000 Video Engineer/CCU
Jhonschultz Congson January 2000 Video Engineer/CCU
Alex Carlos January 2000 Video Engineer/CCU
Michael Tobias A_pril 2004 Video Engineer
Geronimo Baniqued October 1997 Lighting Director
Renaldo San Pedro Se12tember 2004 Lightman
Eri.c Paycana Year 2003 Moving Lightman
Operator
44
Rollo (G.R. No. 210165), Vol. I, pp. 12-13; rollo (G.R. No. 219125), Vol. I, pp. 13-14; rollo (G.R. No.·
222057), pp. 389, 701; i~olfo (G.R. No. 224879), p. 73; rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. III, pp. 1451-1452;
rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, p. 716; and rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. VI, p. 3682.
Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
G.R.. No. 224879 (ABS-CBN Co.rporation, et al. v. Lozares)

Ronnie Lazares /November 1996 Lightman-Electrician
G. R. No. 219125 (Cajoles, Jr., et al.. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting

Corporation)
Ricardo Joy Cajoles, Jr. December 1999 Video Engineer
Antonio Immanuel Calle January 1999 IVTR/Video Engineer
Richard Sison September 1996 fVTR/Video Engineer
Journalie Payonan October 1997 LD/Cameraman
G.R. No. 210165 (Dablo, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcastin~ Corporation)

Ismael Dablo July 1994 Senior Cameraman
Roberto Del Castillo Se2tember 1995 Senior Cameraman
Rolando Barron August 1999 Driver/Assistant
Cameraman
Albert Del Rosario July 1994 Cameraman
George Macaso March 1995 Cameraman
Rey I. Santiago May 1997 Cameraman
Reynaldo Tugade July 1994 Cameraman
Paul Viray July 1997 Cameraman
Upon their engagement, the workers were required to undergo various

training se1ninars and workshops to equip them with the skills and knowledge
necessary in. their respective fields of assigmnent. 45 After completing their
seminars, they were assigned to render services in the self-produced, co.:
produced, and live-coverage prograins of ABS-CBN. 46 Their presence was
strictly required in each program. 47
Customarily, during the production of shows and the live coverage· of

events, ABS-CBN hired three different groups of employees to work in such
productions. These consisted of the technical crew, production staff, and
outside broadcast (OB) van drivers and production assistance (PA) van
drivers. 48
Specifically, the technical crew consisted of the cameramen, audio men,

sound engineers, VTR men, light men, and the camera control unit group, who
were all under the control and supervision of the technical director, production
supervisor, and producer. 49
Meanwhile, the production staff was in charge of the production of

shows or programs, and the workers were subject to the control and
supervision of the Executive Producers and Assistant Producers. 50
45
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 2024.95 & 202497), Vol. VI, p. 3683; rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, p. 716.
46
Id.; rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. IV, p. 2233; rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, p. 717.
47
Rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, p. 717., ·
48
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. IV, p. 2232.
49 Id.
50
Id.
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 202481:i 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,.
224879, 225101 and 225874
Finally, the OB van and PA van drivers were tasked to drive the vans,
which served as the studios outside of the ABS-CBN premises. 51 These make-
shift studios were used for taping and shooting programs in remote areas. 52
All 1nembers of the technical crew, production staff, and OB and PA

van drivers worked as one team, such that the outcome of the production
depended on their combined efforts. 53 Overall, the workers were tasked to
perform numerous functions · relative to broadcasting, programming,
marketing, and production of television shows and programs, actual
broadcasting, reporting, showing of daily programs and shows, and live
reporting of events. Similarly, the members of the production group were
continuously re-hired to film new prograins, upon the conclusion of the shows
they were initially engaged in. 54 ·
In exchange for the services they rendered, the workers were paid
salaries twice a month, as evidenced by pay slips bearing ABS-CBN's
corporate nan1e. 55
S01netime in 2002, ABS-CBN adopted a system known as the Internal

Job Market (IJM) System, a database which provided the user with a list of
accredited technical or creative manpower and/or talents who offered their
services for a fee. This database indicated the competency rating of the
individuals and their c01Tesponding professional fees. 56 The system allowed
the producer to easily obtain infonnation on the talent and his availability for
projects. Should the producer desire to hire an individual from the system,'
the latter shall be notified of the particular project for which his/her services
are sought, and will be ordered to report on the scheduled shooting date. 57
According to ABS-CBN, the IJM scheme led to the creation of a work

pool of accredited technical or creative manpower who offered their services
for a fee. 58 Under this system, the workers were regarded as independent
contractors, not regular employees. 59 An accreditation under the IJM System
did not in any way create an employment relationship between the so-called
talents and the company~ 60 Most importantly, the IJM System eliminated the·
rigors of recruiting or negotiating with independent contractors. 61
Due to the creation of the IJM System, the workers were asked to sign
a contract that would place them all under the IJM Work Pool. They were
s1 Id.
s2 Id.
iI .• 53 Id.
54
See id. at 2229.
55
Rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, p. 717.
56
Rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. I, p. 542.
57
Id. at 542-543.
58
59 Id.
60
Rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. I, p. 543.
61
' ) r
Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
included in the pool without their c nsent or over their vehement objections. 62
Upon the implementation of the IJM System, each of the workers was given
an hourly rate. 63 Consequently, be~nni_ng_ January 2?02, th~y were paid based
on the actual hours they worked, 111ult1phed by the1r specified hourly rate. 64
They did not receive overtime pay, Jremium pay, and holiday pay for the work
they rendered during rest days, spe ial holidays, and regular holidays. 65
Clamoring for better rights, the workers formed the ABS-CBN IJM
Workers' Union. 66 Thereafter, they started demanding recognition as regular ·
employees. Thus, in the later part °if 2002 up to the first quarter of 2003, the·
workers filed cases for regularization before the LA. 67 The workers claimed
that ABS-CBN compelled them I to sign a document denominated as
"Accreditation in the Internal [Job j Market System." 68 With this document,
the workers were relegated to mer¢ talents. 69 ABS-CBN maintained that an
accreditation under the IJM system tlid not create an employ1nent relationship
between it and the "talent".
Furthermore, in a Memorandum dated April 23, 2003,70 entitled "Re:

Undocumented Personnel," ABS-CBN reclassified the status of its regular
employees to mere talents or contractual employees. 71 The Memorandum
stated that "all personnel engaged as talents shall execute relevant talent
contracts not later than 15 May 2003. After such date, any talent engagement
not covered by contracts shall be deemed discontinued and no payments or
disburse1nents shall be authorized by the Finance Manager."n Fearful of
losing their jobs, the workers signed the said contract. 73
Ushering in more changes in the e1nployees' status, sometime in 2007;

ABS-CBN required the workers in ABS-CBN Corporation v. Payonan, et al.
to sign an employment contract, which stated that they were "freelance
employees."74 Those who refused to sign were deprived of their benefits . This
prompted the workers to file a complaint for regularization and claim benefits
due to regular employees. 75 ' .
Meanwhile, the rest of the workers persistently clamored for their

recognition as regular employees. Allegedly, this incurred the ire of ABS-
62
See rollo (G. R. No. 219125), Vol. I, p. 24.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 Id.
66
See id, at 16.
67
Rollo (G.R. No. 202481), Vol. I, p. 13.
68
Id. at 59.
69
Rollo (G.R. No. 202481), Vol. I, p. 13.
70
April 28, 2003 in other parts of the rollo.
71
Rollo (G.R. No. 21.9125), Vol. I, p. 25.
72 Id. .
73
See id. at 26.
74
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. III, p. 1913.
75
Id. at 1913-1914.
' ' .
Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
CBN. 76 In May 2010, ABS-CBN purportedly coerced the union members to

sign a contract and waive their claims for regularization . 77
Because the workers refused to c01nply, ABS-CBN effected a series of

mass dismissals of workers on various dates from June to September 2010.'
Those who refused to sign the said contract were terminated from their'
employment 78 No notice of termination was given to the workers. They were
forthwith barred from entering the company premises. 79
From these series of summary dismissals sprung numerous c01nplaints

filed before the LA for illegal dismissal with claims for monetary benefits,
ranging from overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium,
13th 1nonth pay, night shift differentiat and payment of 1noral, exemplary
damages and atton1ey's fees. 80 ' ·
· Over a span of almost eight years, various rulings have been rendered
by the LA, the NLRC, and the CA involving the instant petitions.
In view of the similarity of facts and issues raised in the eight petitions,
on February 27, 2019, · the Court issued a Resolution 81 ordering the
consolidation of all eight petitions.
Issues
The com1non issues raised in the consolidated petitions consist of

procedural and substantive grounds, which 1nay be sum1narized as follow~:
1. Whether or not the petitions should be dismissed on procedui--al

grounds due to the failure of the workers to file a motion for
reconsideration against the NLRC ruling in G.R. No. 222057 (ABS-
CBN Corporation v. Ong, et al.);
2. Whether or not the workers are guilty of f01um shopping by

instituting the case for illegal dismissal, notwithstanding the
pendency of the regularization case;
3. Whether or not the ruling of the Court in Jalog, et al. v. NLRC82

(Jalog), should be applied in resolving the instant petitions due to
the similarity of facts and circumstances between the said case and
76
77
Id.; rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. I, p. 530; and rollo (G.R. No. 219125), Vol. I, p. 16.
78
Rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. I, p. 531; rollo (G.R. No. 219125), Vol. I, pp. 16-17; rollo (G.R. No.
222057), p. 702; rollo (G.R. No. 224879), p. 391; and rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, p. 717.
79
Rollo (G.R. No. 224879), pp. 391-392; and rollo (G.R. No. 219125), Vol. 1, p. 17.
80
See rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. I, p. 531; and rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. I, p. 24.
81
Rollo (G.R. No. 202481), Vol. II, pp. 1429-1430.
82
See rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. III, pp. 2027-2028 and rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 &
202497), Vol. IV, pp. 2066-2086.
Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057, · r
224879, 225101 and 225874
the instant.petitions;
4. Whether or not the worker; are regular employees of ABS-CBN;
5. Whether or not the workers in G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497 (ABS-
CBN Corporation v. Pay~nan, et al.) and G.R. No. 202481 (Del
Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) are entitled
to the benefits under the iollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
with ABS-CBN; and I,
6. Whether or not the worikers in G.R. No. 222057 (ABS-CBN

I '
Corporation v. Ong, e~ al.); G.R. No. 224879 (ABS-CBN
Corporation, et al. v. Lazares); G.R. No. 225874 (ABS-CBN
Corporation v. Zaballa, lit et al.); G.R. No. 219125 (Cajoles, Jr.,
et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadtasting Corporation); G.R. No. 225101
I
(Perez, et al. v. ABS-CBN Jfroadcasting Corporation); and G.R. No.

210165 (Dablo, etal. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, eta!.)
were illegally-dismissed by ABS-CBN.
On one side, the workers clamored for their recognition as regular

employees of ABS-CBN in view of their performance of work that is
necessary and desirable to the latter's business over a period of many years.
In addition, the workers point out that they were hired, paid, supervised
controlled, disciplined, and eventually, dismissed by ABS-CBN. They,
likewise claim that as regular employees, they were illegally dismissed.
On the other side, ABS-CBN primarily seeks the dismissal of the petitions
on procedural grounds, claiming that the failure of the workers to file a Motion
for Reconsideration before the CA, and their cormnission of forum shopping,
render the instant petitions defective; hence, dismissible. Similarly, ABS-CBN
claiJ.ns that the ruling of the Court in Jalog should be applied to the workers
herein due to the similarity of facts in the said case and the instant petitions.
As for its substantive arguments, ABS-CBN adamantly maintains that

the workers were not regular employees, but were actually talents. They were
hired due to their distinct skill and artistry. In fact, the workers were not
subject to its control and supervision, and were merely given guidelines in the
performance of their work. Accordingly, in the absence of an employ1nent
relationship between ABS-CBN and the workers, the former cannot be held
guilty of illegal dismissal.
·Ruling of the Court
Procedural Issues
The failure to file a niotion for

Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
reconsideration shall not be deemed

fatal to the cause of the workers
As a general rule, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an

83
indispensable condition for filing a special civil action for certiorari. The
motion for reconsideration is essential to grant the court or tribunal the
opportunity to correct its error, if any, before resort to the courts of justice
may be had. 84 However, this rule is not iron-clad, and is subject to well-known 1
exceptions, such as:

[l.] Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no
jurisdiction;
[2.] Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have

been duly raised and passed upon by the fower court, or ar_e the
same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
[3.] Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question
and any further dJlay would prejudice the interests of the
Govennnent or of th~ petitioner or the subject matter of the action
1
is perishable; •
[4.] Where, under the circ~m1stances, a motion for reconsideration would

be useless;
I
[5.] Where petitioner wa~ deprived of due process and there is extreme
1
urgency for relief;

i
[6.] Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and
the granting of such 11elief by the trial court is improbable;
[7.] Where the proceeditigs in the lower comi are a nullity for lack of
due process; ·
I
[8.] Where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and
[9.] Where the issue raisdd is one purely of law or where public interest
is involved. 85 (Emphhsis in the original)
I
The second exception apblies here. The issues raised before the NLRC,
which pertain to the existence of
an employment relationship between ABS-
CBN and the workers and the fact of illegal dis1nissal, were the very same
questions raised in the speciai civil action for certiorari before the CA. 86
Certainly? it would be futile to strictly require the filing of a motion for
reconsideration when the very issues raised before the CA were exactly
~imilar to those passed upon and resolved by the NLRC. 87
83
Olores v. Manila Doctors College, 731 Phil. 45, 58 (2014).
84
Id. at 58.
85
Id. at 58-59.
86
See CA Decision, rollo (G.R. No. 222057), pp. 700-713.
87
See NLRC Decision, id. at 387-399.
Decision 19 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
Moreover, in labor cases, rules of procedure shall not be applied in a

rigid and technical sense, as they !are merely tools designed to facilitate the
attaimnent of justice. Thus, when 1their strict application would result in the
frustration rather than the promotion of substantial justice, technicalities must
be avoided. I ·
Here, considering that the v~ry livelihood of the workers is hanging by

a thread, the ends of justice will be;better served by ruling on the merits of the
case, rather than summarily dismis~ing the petition on account of a procedural
flaw. '
The workers are not guilty of forum

shopping
ABS-CBN seeks the dismissal of the petitions~ claiming that the

workers are guilty of forum shopping for filing their complaint for illegal
dismissal during the pendency of their regularization case. 88
The Court is not persuaded.
Forum shopping exists when one party repetitively avails of several

judicial remedies in different courts, siip.ultaneously or successively. Th~
remedies stem from the same transactions, are founded on identical facts and
circumstances, and raise substantially similar issues, which are either pending .
in, or have been resolved adversely by another court. 89 Through forum
shopping, unscrupulous litigants trifle with court processes by taking
advantage of a variety of competent tribunals, repeatedlyp trying their luck in
several different fora until they obtain a favorable result. 90 Because of this,
forum shopping is condemned, as it unnecessarily burdens the courts with
heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the
judiciary, and permits a· mockery of the judicial processes. 91 Absent
safeguards against forum shopping, two competent tribunals may render
contradictory decisions, thereby disrupting the efficient administration of
justice.
Here, although it is true that the parties in the regularization and the
illegal dismissal cases are identical, the reliefs sought and the causes of action
are different. There is no identity of causes of action between the first set of
cases and the second set of cases.
The test to. detennine whether the causes of action are identical is to.
ascertain whether the same evidence would support both actiqns, or whether
88
These were the issues raised in the cases of ABS-CBN Corporation v. Ong, et al. (G.R. No. 222057) and
Cajoles, Jr., et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No. 219125).
89
Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. v. Social Security Commission, 582 Phil. 686, 699 (2008).
90
Id. at 697, citing Guevara v. BPI Securities Corporation, 530 Phil. 342, 366-367 (2006).
91
Id. at 696, citing Spouses Abines v. Bank ofthe Philippine Islands, 517 Phil. 609, 616 (2006).
Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
20249~2i0165,219Ii5,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
there is an identity in the facts essen~al to the maintenance of the two actions.
If the saine facts or evidence would support both actions, then they are
considered the same; a judgment m the first case would be a bar to the
subsequent action. 92 This is absent li.ere. The facts or the pieces of evidence
that would detennine whether the workers were illegally dismissed are not the
same as those that would support thdir clamor for regularization.
Besides, it must be re1nembered that the circumstances obtaining at the

time the workers filed the regularization cases were different from when they
subsequently filed the illegal dismissal cases. Before their illegal dismissal,
the workers were simply clamoring for their recognition a~ regular employees,
and their right to receive benefits concomitant with regular employment.
However, during the pendency of the regulaiization cases, the workers were
summarily tenninated fr01n their employment. This supervening event gave
rise to a cause of action for illegal dismissal, distinct from that in the
regularization case. This time, the workers were not only praying for
regularization, but also for reinstatement by questioning the legality of their
dismissal. The issue turned into whether or not ABS-CBN had just or ·
authorized cause to terminate their employment. Clearly, it was ABS-CBN's
action of dismissing the workers that gave rise to the illegal dismissal cases.
And it is absurd for it to now ask the Court to fault the workers for questioning
ABS-CBN's actions, which were done while the regularization cases were
pending. The Court cannot allow this.
I
l I
Simply stated, in a regularization case, the question is whether the.

employees are entitled to the benefits enjoyed by regular employees even as
they are treated as talents by ABS-CBN. On the other hand, in the illegal
dismissal case, the workers likewise need to prove the existence of employer-
employee relationship, but ABS-CBN must likewise prove the validity of the
termination of the e1nployment. Clearly, the evidence that will be submitted
in the regularization case will be different from that in the illegal dismissal
case.
Having thus settled the procedural matters raised by ABS-CBN, the

Court shall now proceed to discuss the merits of the case:
Substantive Issues
Jalog is not binding on the workers
ABS-CBN argues that the ruling in Jalog applies. In Jalog, the CA

Fonner Seventh Division ruled that the cameramen and the other workers of
its Engineering Department are talents and not its regular e1nployees. This
ruling was affinned ~y the Court through a Minute Resolution93 dated October
5,201 L
92
Dela Rosa Liner, Inc. v. Barela, 765 Phil. 251,259 (2015).
93
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. III, pp. 2027-2028.
Decision 21 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
This contention does not hold water.
Essentially, the phrase star~ decisis et non quieta movere literally

_means "stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled." This legal
concept ordains that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case
1
should be applied to those that follow, if the facts are substantially the same,
even though the parties may be different. 94 Simply stated, like cases ought to
be decided alike. Accordingly, "whete the same questions relating to the same'
event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous
case litigated and decided by a cmnpetent court, the rule of stare decisis is a
bar to any attempt to relitigate the s~me issue."95
However, the CA' s decision in Jalog was affirmed by the Court through
a minute resolution. The binding nature of a minute resolution and its ability
to establish a lasting judicial precedent have already been settled in Deutsche
Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 96 There, the
Court explained that a minute resolution constitutes res judicata only insofar ·
as it involves the "san1e subject matter and the same issues concerning the
same parties." 97 However, it will not set a binding precedent "if other parties
or another subject matter (even with the saine parties and issues) is
involved." 98 Thus, the ruling in Jalog, which involves different litigants, may
not be applied to the parties in the instant petition.
The workers are employees of ABS-

CBN
ABS-CBN further argues that the workers are talents and not its
employees. They claim that this is evident from the nature of work they
performed and the contracts they signed. ABS-CBN also staunchly 1naintains
that its main business is broadcasting, and not the production of programs. It
explains that as a broadcasting co1npany, it avails itself ~f various options. in
airing its content and generating revenues. Among these schemes are "block.-
timing," availment of foreign canned shows and licensed programs, as well as
line production, co-production, self-production, and live coverages. 99
The Court is not persuaded.
In ascertaining the existence of an e1nployer-employee relationship, the

Court has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, which pertains to: (i) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (ii) the payment of wages; (iii) the
94
Lazatin v. Hon. Desierto, 606 Phil. 271, 282 (2009), citing Chinese Young Men's Christian Association
ofthe Philippine Islands v. Remington Steel Corporation, 573 Phil. 320, 337 (2008). .
95
Id. at 282-283, citing Chinese Yqung Men's Christian Association ofthe Philippine Islands v. Remington'
Steel Corporation, id. at 337.
96
716 Phil. 676 (2013).
97
Id. at 687. Emphasis omitted.
98
Id. Emphasis omitted.
99
Seerollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. I, pp. 13-14; rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. III, p. 1914.
Decision 22 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 22510J and 225874
power of dismissal; and (iv) •the• power of control over the employee's
conduct, or the so-called "control test'' 100
This is not the first time the four-fold test is being applied to ABS-CBN ,
workers. The Court has ruled in Begino v. ABS-CBN Corporation 101 (Begino ), q·
that cametamen/editors and reporters are employees of ABS-CBN following

the four-fold test.
Begino involved cameramen/editors and reporters engaged under

Talent Contracts, which were regularly renewed over the years. The Court
therein ruled that petitioners therein were regular employees, as ~allows:
The Court finds that, nptwithstanding the nomenclature of their

Talent Contracts and/or Projeqt Assignment Forms and the tenns and
condition[s] embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-
CBN. Time and again, it has been ruled that the test to determine whether
employment is regular or not is the reasonable com1ection between the
activity performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of
I
the employer. As cameramen/editors and reporters, petitioners were

undoubtedly performing functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN' s
business of broadcasting television and radio content. It matters little that
petitioners' services were engaged for specified periods for TV Patrol Bi col
and that they were paid according to the budget allocated therefor. Aside
from the fact that said program is a regular weekday fare of the ABS-CBN' s
Regional Network Group in Naga City, the record shows that, from their
initial engagement in the aforesaid capacities, petitioners were continuously
re-hired by respondents over the years. To the mind of the Court,
respondents' repeated hiring of petitioners for its long-running news
program positively indicates that the latter were ABS-CBN' s regular
employees.
xxxx
As cameramen/editors and reporters, it also appears that petitioners

were subject to the control and supervision of respondents which, first and
foremost, provided them with the equipments (sic) essential for the
discharge of their functions. Prepared at the instance of respondents,
petitioners' Talent Contracts tellingly provided that ABS-CBN retained "all
creative, administrative, financial and legal control" of the program to
which they were assigned. Aside from having the right to require petitioners
"to attend and participate· in all promotional or merchandising campaigns,
activities or events for the Program," ABS-CBN required the former to
perfom1 their functions "at such locations and Performance/Exhibition
Schedules" it provided or, subject to prior notice, as it chose[,] detennine,
modify or change. Even if they were unable to comply with said schedule,
petitioners were required to give advance notice, subject to respondents'
approval. However obliquely worded, the Court finds the foregoing terms
and conditions demonstrative of the control respondents exercised not only
over the results of petitioners' work but also the means employed to achieve
100
South East International Rattan, Inc. v. Coming, 729 Phil. 298, 306 (2014), citing Atok Big Wedge Co.,
Inc. v. Gison, 670 Phil. 615, 626-627 (2011), further citing Philippine Global Communication, Inc. v.
De Vera, 498 Phil. 301, 308-309 (2005).
IOI 758 Phil. 467 (2015).
Decision 23 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 & .
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 am;l 225874
the same. 102
The Court's ruling in Begino is applicable here. The workers here are
employees of ABS-CBN.
The records show that the workers were hired by ABS-CBN through its
personnel department. In fact, the workers presented certificates of
compensation, payment/tax withheld (BIR Form 2316), Social Security
System (SSS), Pag-ibig Fund documents, and Health Maintenance Cards,
which all indicate that they are employed by ABS-CBN. 103
In the same vein, the workers received their salaries from ABS-CBN
twice a month, as proven through the pay slips bearing the latter's corporate
name. Their rate of wages was detennined solely by ABS-CBN. 104 ABS-CBN
likewise withheld taxes and granted the workers PhilHealth benefits. 105 These
clearly show that the workers were salaried personnel of ABS-CBN, not
independent contractors.
Likewise, ABS-CBN wielded the power to discipline, and

correspondingly dismiss, any errant employee. The workers were
continuously under the watch of ABS-CBN and were required to strictly
follow company rules and regulations in and out of the company premises. 106
Finally, consistent with the most important test in determining the

existence of an employer-employee relationship, ABS-CBN wielded the·
power to control the means and methods in the performance of the employees'
work. The workers were subject to the constant watch and scrutiny of ABS-
CBN, through its production supervisors who strictly monitored their work
and ensured that their end results are acceptable and in accordance with the
standards set by the company. 107 In fact, the workers were required to comply
with ABS-CBN's company policies which entailed the prior approval and
evaluation of their perfonnance. They were further mandated to attend
seminars and workshops to ensure their optimal performance at work. 108 ·
Likewise, ABS-CBN controlled their scheq.ule and work assignments (and re-
assignments).109 Furthermore, the workers did not have their own equipment
to perform their work. ABS-CBN provided them with the needed tools and
implements to accomplish their jobs. 110
And just like in Regino, the fact that the workers signed a "Talent
102
Id. at 480-482.
103
Rollo (G.R. No. 219125), Vol. I, p. 15. -
104
Rollo (G.R. No. 225874), Vol. II, p. 717; rollo (G.R. No. 219125), Vol. I, p. 22; rollo (G.R. No. 225101),
Vol. I, p. 32.
10s Id.
106
See rollo (G.R. No. 219125), VoL I, p. 22.
W7 Id.
108
See id.
109
Id.; rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. I~ p. 532.
110
Decision 24 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
Contract and/or Project Assignment Form" does not ipso facto make them .
talents. It is settled that. a talent contract does not necessarily prevent an
employee from acquiring a regular employment status. 1 u The nature of the
employment does not depend on the will or word of the employer or on the
procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the employee, but on the
activities performed by the employee in relation to the employer's business. 112
Besides, it must be reme1nbered that labor contracts are subject to the

police power of the State and are placed on a higher plane than ordinary
contracts. 113 .This means that the Court shall not hesitate to strike down any
contract that is designed to circumvent an employee's tenurial security.
Accordingly, ABS-CBN's Talent Contract, which deprives the workers of
regular employn1ent, cannot stand.
The workers are regular emplolees
Having established that the workers are employees -of ABS-CBN, the
Court proceeds to determine the kind of employees they are.
The Labor Code classifies four (4) kinds of employees, as follows: (i)
regular employees, or those who have been engaged to perfonn activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; (ii) project employees, or those whose employment has been fixed
for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which
has been detennined at the time of the employees' engagement; (iii) seasonal
employees, or those who perfonn services which are seasonal in nature, and
whose employment lasts during the duration of the. season; and (iv) casual
employees, or those who are not regular, project, or seasonal employees.
Jurisprudence added a fifth kind - fixed-term employees, or thos_e hired only
for a definite period oftime. 114
As a background, block-timing is a scheme where an external producer,

who is known as the block-timer; purchases a fixed number of airtime on
certain dates from ABS-CBN. During this time, the block-timer's own shows
are aired, and the advertising revenues earned shall belong to the block-timer.
Similarly, in airing foreign canned shows and licensed programs, ABS-

CBN merely obtains broadcasting rights from the previous owners of the said
progran1s. Basically, what ABS-CBN does in these cases is to simply avail of
distributorship or airing rights in order to play the contents of a program that
has been previously produced.
lll Begino v. ABS-CBN Corporation, supra note 101, at 482, Dumpit-Murillo v. CA, 551 Phil. 725~
735 (2007).
Ill Universal Rob.ina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Acibo, 724 Phil. 489, 503-504 (2014).
113
Begino v. ABS-CBN Corporation, supra note 101, at 479.
114
See GMA N,etwqrk, Inc. v. Pabriga, 722 Phil. 161, 169-170 (2013), citing Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,
260 Phil. 747 (1990).
Decision 25 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
Hence, in this respect, there can be no employer-employee relationship

between the production staff of the "block-timers," and owners of the foreign
shows Q,nd licensed programs, on the one hand, and ABS-CBN, on the
other. 115 This is based on the obvious reason that ABS-CBN had no hand in·
the production of the said shows. However, this same ratiocination does not(
apply to the workers hired in the self-produced, line-produced, co-produced
shows, and live coverages of ABS-CBN.
Notably, an essential characteristic of regular employ1nent as defined

in Article· 280 116 of the Labor Code is the perfonnance by the employee of
activities considered necessary and desirable to the overall business or trade
of the employer. 117 The necessity of the functions performed by the workers
and their connection with the main business of an , employer shall be
ascertained "by considering the nature of the work perfonned and its relation
to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety." 118
Again, this is not the first time the Court has determined that certain
workers of ABS-CBN are regular employees given the tasks that they were
engaged in. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Nazareno 119
(Nazareno), the workers involved were production assistants who were
repeatedly hired but treated as talents. The Court therein ruled that the
production assistants were regular employees as follows:
The principal test is whether or not the project employees were

assigned to caITy out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and
scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for
that project.
In this case, it is undisputed that respondents had continuously

performed the same activities for an average of five years. Their assigned
tasks are necessary or desirable in the usual. l;msiness or trade of the
petitioner. The persisting need for their services is sufficient evidence of the
necessity and indispensability of such services to petitioner's business or
trade. While length of time may not be a sole controlling test for project
employment, it can be a strong factor to detennine whether the employee
was hired for a specific undertaldng or in fact tasked to perform functions
which are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual trade or business
of the employer. We note further that petitioner did not report the
termination of respondents' employment in the particular "project" to the
Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office having jurisdiction
over the workplace within 30 days following the· date of their separation
from work, using the prescribed form on employees'
termination(dismissals/suspensions.
As gleaned from the records of this case, petitioner itself is not

certain how to categorize respondents. In its earlier pleadings; petitioner
m Rollo (G.R. No. 225874)~ Vol. I, p. 14.
116
Now Art. 294 of the LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
117
See Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo, supra note 112, at 500.
118
Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, 348 Phil. 580, 602-603 (] 998), citing De Leon v. NLRC, 257 Phil. 626, 632
(1989).
119
534 Phil. 306 (2006).
Decision 26 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,2~0i65,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
classified respondents as program employees, and in later

pleadings, independent contractors. Program employees, or project
employees, are different from independent contractors because in the case
of the latter, no employer-employee relationship 120
....,.L,...Lu ........
Nazareno applies here. A scrutiny of the Articles of Incorporation of

. ABS-CBN shows that its primary purpose is:
x x x To carry on the business of television and radio network

broadcasting of all kinds and types; to caJ.Ty on all other businesses incident
thereto; and to establish, construct, maintain and operate for commercial
purposes and in the public interest, television and. radio broadcasting
stations within or without the Philippines, using microwave, satellite or
whatever means including the use of any new technologies in television and
radio systems. 121
In conjunction therewith, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the same Articles of

Incorporation reveal that ABS-CBN is likewise engaged in the business of the
production of shows:
3. To engage in any manner, shape or form in the recording and

reproduction of the human voice, musical instruments, and sound of every
nature, name and description; to engage in any manner, shape or form in the
recording and reproduction of moving pictures, visuals and stills of every
nature, name and description; and to acquire and operate audio and video
recording, magnetic recording, digital recording and electrical transcription
exchanges, and to purchase, acquire, sell, rent, lease, operate, exchange or
otherwise dispose of any and all kinds of recordings, electrical
transcriptions or other devices by which sight and sound may be
reproduced.
4. To carry on the business of providing graphic, design, videographic,

photographic and cinematographic production services and other creative
production services; and to engage in any manner, shape or fom1 in post
production mixing, dubbing, overdubbing, audio-video processing,
sequence alteration and modification of every nature of al,! kinds of audio
and video productions.
5. To carry on the business of promotion and sale of all kinds of

advertising and marketing services and generally to conduct all lines of
business allied to and interdependent with that of advertising and marketing
services. 122
Based on the foregoing, the recording and reproduction of moving

pictures, visuals, and stills of every nature, name, and description or
simply, the production of shows - are an important component of ABS-
CBN's overall business scheme. In fact, ABS-CBN's advertising revenues ar~
likewise derived from the shows it produces.
120
Id. at 333-334.
121
Rollo (G.R. No. 222057), p. 110.
122
Id. 111.
~/ ! I
Decision 27 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
The workers - ·who were camera1nen, light men, gaffers, lighting

director~, audio men, sound engineers, system engineer~, VTR 1nen, video
engineers, technical directors, and drivers - all played an indispensable role
in the production and re-production of shows, as well as post-production
services. The workers even played a role in ABS-CBN' s business of obtaining
commercial revenues. To obtain profits through advertisements, ABS-CBN
would also produce and air shows that will attract the majority of the viewing
public. The necessary jobs required in the production of such shows were '
performed by the workers herein. 123
i
In fact, a perusal of ~S-CBN's Organizational Structure would show
that the workers' positions were included in the plantilla, under the Network
Engineering Group and Prob.uction Engineering Services, and News and
of
Current Affairs Department ABS-CBN. 124 This serves as clear proof of the
importance of the functions performed by the workers to the over-all business
of ABS-CBN. In Fuji Tele~ision Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 125 the Court
emphasized that organization! charts and personnel lists, aIDong others, serve
as evidence of employee stanis. 126
Parenthetically, the main distinction between a talent and a regular

employee in the broadcast industry was explained in the landmark case of
Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. 127 (Sonza).
In Sonza, Jose Sonza (Sonza) was a talent who was engaged on the basis
of his expertise in his craft. 128 His possession of unique skills and celebrity
status gave him the distinct privilege to bargain with ABS-CBN's officials ori
the terms of his agreement with the latter. These negotiations resulted to a
hefty talent fee. Also, the payment of his salaries did not depend on the amount
of work he performed or the number of times he reported for duty, but was
based solely on the terms of the agreement. More than t):iis, ABS-CBN was
duty-bound to continue paying him his talent fees during the lifetime of the
agreement, regardless of any business losses it may suffer, and even if it
ceased airing his programs. 129
More importantly, ABS-CBN was bereft of any power to terminate or

discipline Sonza, even if the means and methods of the performance of his
work did not meet its approval. Similarly, ABS-CBN did not control his work
schedule, or regulate the manner in which he "delivered his lines, appeared on
television, and sotmded on radio," 130 or had any say over the contents of his
script. The only instruction given by ABS-CBN was a simple warning that
123
Id. at 273.
124
Rollo (G.R. No. 202481), Vol. I, p. 20.
125
749 Phil. 388 (2014).
126
Id. at 418, citing Tenazas v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, 731 Phil. 217 ~ 230 (2014), further citing Meteoro
v. Creative Creatures, Inc.~ 610 Phil. 150, 161 (2009).
127
475 Phil. 539 (2004).
128 See id. at 565-566.
129
Id. at 551-554.
130
Id. at 557-558.
Decision 28 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
Sonza should refrain from criticizing ABS-CBN and its interests. In short,
Sonza enjoyed an untrammeled artistic creativity on the contents and delivery
of his lines and spiels. 131
In stark contrast, the workers here were hired through ABS-CBN's ·

Human Resources Departlnent. Their engagement did not involve a
negotiation with ABS-CBN's·high-level officials. They did not possess any
peculiar skills or talents or a well-nigh celebrity status that would have given
them the power to negotiate the terms of their employment. In fact, their only
choice over their engagement was limited to either accepting or rejecting the
standard terms of employment prepared by ABS-CBN. In the same manner,
they received a basic salary _and were granted benefits such as SSS, Medicare,
and 13 th month pay benefits customarily given to regulaf'e~nployees. 132
Equally telling, the worl~ers did not enjoy the same level of impunity
granted to Sonza. It bears stressing that an independent contractor is endowed
with a certain level of skill and talent that is not available on-the-job. 133
Obviously, the workers do not hold this level of distinction.
ABS-CBN further points out that a particular sense of creativity or

artistic flair is needed depending on the type of show that the worker is
employed. For instance, the artistry and skill demanded for a television drama
or telenovela is very different from that required in a variety show or a current
events program. According to ABS-CBN, this proves that the workers were
hired due to their unique skill in matching the artistic demands of each distinct
program.
Strangely, however, a perusal of the list of television shows where each

worker was hired reveals that ,they worked on a diverse range of programs,
ranging from formal news programs, lively variety shows, and dramatic
telenovelas. The ease with which they shuttled from one program to another,
regardless of the huge disparity in the gem'"e of the programs, clearly shows
that their duties were more routinary and mundane, and not artistic or creative
as ABS-CBN strives to portray.
In addition, it is bizarre that the workers, whom ABS-CBN maintains

are ''talents," were likewise assigned to perform work as property custodians
and maintenance personnel..1 34 Surely, individuals as "talented" and "skilled"
as ABS-CBN claims them to be will not be ordered to perfonn such banal i
tasks.
Suffice it to say, talents or "[i]ndependent contractors often present
131
See id. at 557.
132
Rollo (G.R. No. 222057), p. 276.
133
Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., supra note 127, at 555, citing Alberty-Velez v. Corporaci6n De
Puerto Rico Para La D£fusi6n Publica ("WIPR"), 361 F.3d 1, March 2, 2004.
134
Rollo (G.R. No. 225101), Vol. I, p. 529.
Decision 29 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225 87 4
themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them

from ordinary employees." 135 Because of this, the employer does not exercise
control over the manner and method in which the talent performs his/her work.
Simply the greater the control exercised by the employer, the greater the
likelihood that the worker is an employee. "The converse holds true as well
- the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered-
an independent contractor." 136
Based on all the foregoing, it is absurd to conclude that the employees

are similarly situated with Sonza. By no stretch of the imq.gination may these
workers be regarded as independent contractors.
The workers are not program/project

employees ofABS-CBN
ABS-CBN argues that, should the Court affirm the existence of an

employment relationship betwe n the said company and the workers, the latter
should simply be regarded as pr ~ect employees.
Such argument fails to p
The business of creatin and producing television shows is heavily

dependent on viewer preferen e and advancements in 1nodem technology. '
Given the numerous television p --ograins aired in a network, it is not surprising.
to find one that would last for m ny years, and one that is terminated in a short
span of months. Indeed, it is conomical for the broadcasting networks to
maintain shows which ea1n, a d to end those which do not. More so, it is
nearly impossible to predict be orehand the success and the lifespan of each
program.
In fact, this volatility i recognized in Department of Labor and

Employment's Policy Inst1uction No. 40 137 (Policy Inst1uction No. 40), which
affirms that "changes of progrf;lms, ratings or formats" affect a broadcasting
industry's business or trade. Due to this reality, the Policy Instruction
recognizes the existence of two kinds of employees in the broadcast industry.
The first of which are the regular station employees characterized as:
x x x [T]hose whose services are engaged to discharge functions

which are usually necessary and desirable to the operation of the station and
whose usefulness is not affected by changes of programs, ratings or fo1mats
and who observe normal working hours. This shall include employees
whose talents, skills or services are engaged as such by the station without
particular reference to any specific program or unde1iaking, and are not
135
Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., supra note 127, at 552.
136
Id. at 556. p
137
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, HOURS OF WORK AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN THE BROADCAST
INDUSTRY, January 8, 1979. .
Decision 30 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 a11d 225874
allowed by the station to be engaged or hired by other stations or persons

even if such employees do not observe normal working hours. 138
Based on the definition given, station employees are regular employees

as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
The other classification of broadcast employees pertains to the program,

employees, who are:
x x x [T]hose whose skills, talents or services are engaged by the

station for a particular or specific pro gram or undertaking and who are not
required to observe nonnal working hours such that on some days they work
for less than eight (8) hours and on other days beyond the normal work
hours observed by station employees and are allowed to enter into
employment contracts with other persons, stations, advertising agencies or
sponsoring companies. x x x 139
The above definition shows that program employees are project

employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code, since their employment is
fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of
which has been detennined at the time of their engagement. Consequently,
program employees shall be under a written contract specifying among other
things, the nature of the work to be performed, rates of pay, and the programs
in which they will work.
Policy Inst1uction No. 40 is useful in understanding the classes of

employment in the broadcast industry, insofar as it pertains to the regular
station employees and the program employees. In Consolidated Broadcasting
System, Inc. v. Oberio, 140 and Television and Production Exponents, Inc. v.
Servana, 141 the Court used the provisions of Policy Instruction No. 40 to
determine the workers' employment status and thus: declared that ~e
employer's failure to provide a project employment contract, as mandated by
said Policy Instruction, easily proves that the so-called talents or project
workers are, in reality, regular employees.
As applied here, the wmd<ers are not project/program employees under

Policy Instruction No. 40, which mandates that the engage1nent of program
employees shall be under a written contract specifying the nature of their
work, rates of pay, and the programs in which they will render services. "The
contract shall be duly registered by the station with the Broadcast Media
Council within three days from its consumination." 142
Essentially, in a project-based employment, the employee is assigned

to a particular project or phase, which begins and ends at a detem1ined or'
138
Policy Instruction No. 40, p. I.
139
Id. at 2.
140
551 Phil. 802 (2007).
141
566 Phil. 564 (2008).
142
Policy Instruction No. 40.
Decision 31 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,21q165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
determinable tiine. Consequently, the services of the project employee may

be lawfully terminated upon the completion of such project or phase. 143 For
employment to be regarded as project-based, it is incumbent upon the \
employer to prove that (i) the employee was hired to carry out a specific .
project or undertaking, and (ii) the employee was notified of the duration and
scope of the project. 144
Here, ABS-CBN failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the

requirements for project employment were complied with. There is nothing in
the records that would prove that the e1nployees were notified beforehand of
the duration and scope of their projects. Neither was there confirmation of
compliance with the contract-registration requirement, ,or evidence of the
submission of a notice of tennination or completion of project. It is basic that
project or contractual employees shall be apprised of their project under a
written contract, specifying inter alia the nature of work to be performed and
the rates of pay and the program in which they will work. Surely, ABS-CBN
was in the best position to present these documents. Its failure to present them
is therefore taken against it.
The Court is mindful that, in order to strike a balance between the rights
of labor and capital and, more importantly, to contend with the volatility of
the broadcasting industry, various employment agreements may be forged
between the broadcasting company and the workers. These may range from
regular employment, if the employees are continuously hired from one
program to another, with their tenure unaffected by any changes in programs,
ratings, or fonnats, to project employment, wherein the employees are
i I
assigned to work for a specific project or program, or a particular season

I
within the program, with their tenure coterminous with the said program. This
second classification likewise includes employees who are tasked to work on
the seasonal specials released by the broadcast network. In the extreme end,
workers who possess a distinct level of skill and artistry may be engaged as
independent ~ontractors. However, what remains crucial is the network's
compliance with the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing rules
and regulations.
In this regard, cameramen may, in special instances, be regarded as

talents if they possess a distinct level of artistry and creativity and work under
minimal guidelines set by the director or producer. In this instance, the
director works shnply to coordinate the end result, with the caineramen 1
executing the shots and angles on their own accord and discretion. In this .
respect, a distinction must be drawn between the cameramen who are talents,
versus the cameramen in the instant case, who are regular employees of ABS-
CBN.
143
Dacles v. Millenium Erectors Corporation, 763 Phil. 550, 558 (2015), citing Omni Hauling Services,
Inc. v. Bon, 742 Phil.-335, 343-344 (2014).
144 Id. at 558.
Decision 32 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
The IJM Systeni of ABS~CBN is a

work pool ofregular employees
The final defense raised by ABS-CBN is that the workers belonged to

a work pool of independent contractors, who were hired from time to time to
work in its television prograins. To show proof thereof, ABS-CBN points out
that the workers were not exclusively bound to render services for ABS-CBN,
but were actually free to offer their services to other employers anytime they
wanted to. ABS-CBN is only partly correct.
l
I'
i
I
The Court finds that a work pool indeed existed, but its members,
!
consistent with the rulings in Begino and Nazareno, were regular employees,
and not independent contractors.
Traditionally, work pools have been recognized in the construction,

shipping, and security 145 industries. However, in 1998, the Court, in
Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC 1.46 (Maraguinot) affirmed the. existence of work
pools in the motion picture industry, considering that "the raison d'etre of
both [construction and film] industries concern projects with a foreseeable
suspension of work." 147
The broadcast industry is a business that is allied with the film industry. ,
Similar to the business of producing and creating films, the production of
programs in the broadcast industry likewise involves periods with a·
foreseeable suspension of work. In fact, the description of a work pool
perfectly suits the distinct nature of the broadcast industry:
A work pool may exist although the workers in the pool do not
receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary
breaks in the business, provided that the worker shall be available when
called to report for a project. Although primarily applicable to regular
seasonal workers, this set-up can likewise be applied to project workers
insofar as the effect of temporary cessation of work is concerned. [It is said
that this arrangement] is beneficial to both the employer and employee for
it prevents the unjust situation of "coddling labor at the expense of capital"
and at the same time enables the workers to attain the status of regular
employees. [In Lao, the Comi held that] the continuous rehiring of the same
set of employees within the framework of the Lao Group of Companies is
strongly indicative that private respondents were an integral part of a work
pool from which petitioners. drew its workers for its various projects. 148
(Citations omitted)
The creation of a work . pool is a valid exercise of management

prerogative. It is a privilege inherent in the employer's right to control and
. manage its enterprise effectJvely, and freely conduct its business operations
145
Exocet Security and Allied Services C01p., et al. v. Serrano, 744 Phil. 403,418 (2014).
146 Supra note 118. p
147
Id. at 605.
148
Id. at 604, citing Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC, 344 Phil. 268, 280 ( 1997).
Decision 33 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
to achieve its purpose. However, in order to ensure that the work pool
arrangement is not used as a scheme to circumvent the employees' security of
tenure, the employer 1nust. prove that (i) a work pool in fact exists, and (ii) the
members therein are free to leave anytime and offer their services to other
~mployers. These requirements are critical in defining the precise nature of
the workers' employment. 149
Furthermore, in Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. v. NLRC, 150 the Court"

explained that members of a work pool could either be project employees or
regular employees. 151 Specifically, members of a work pool acquire regular
employment status if: (i) they were continuously, as opposed to intermittently,
re-hired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (ii)
the tasks they perform are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the employer. 152
In the particular case of ABS-CBN, the IJM System clearly functions

as a work pool of employees involved in the production of programs. A closer
scrutiny of the IJM System shows that it is a pool frmn which ABS-CBN
draws its manpower for the creation and production of its television programs.
It serves as a "database which provides the user, basically the program
producer, a list of accredited technical or creative manpower who offer their
services." 153 The database includes information, such as the cmnpetency
rating of the e1nployee ai~d his/her c01Tesponding professional fees. Should
the company wish to hire a person for a particular project, it will notify the
latter to report on a set filming date. 154 ·
Both parties acknowledged the existence of the IJM Syste1n work pool
and the workers' inclusion therein. On the part of ABS-CBN, it gave the
workers an ABS-CBN identificati_on card, placed them under the supervision
of its officers and managers, allowed them to use its facilities and equipment,
and continuously e1nployed them in the production of television programs. On
the part of the workers, they formed the ABS-CBN IJM System Worker's
Union, recognizing that they were in fact part of the IJM System work pool.
However, the continuous rehiring of the members of the IJM System

work pool from one prograin to another bestowed upon them regular
employment status. As such, they cannot be separated fr01n the service
without cause as they are considered regular, at least with respect to the
production of the television programs. This holds true notwithstanding the fact
that they were allowed to offer their services to other employers.
149
See Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. v. 330 Phil. 306, 320-322 (1996).
1so Id.
151
Id.at321.
152
Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, supra note 118, at 606.
153
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. III, p. 1915.
1s4 Id.
Decision 34 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
As in Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC, 155 the Court affirmed that the
members of a work pool shall still be regarded as regular employees, even if
they are allowed to seek employment elsewhere during lulls in the business. 156 '
The Court stressed that, during the cessation of ,work, the e1nployees shall·
silnply be treated as being on leave of absence without pay until their next
project. Correlatively, the e1nployer shall not be obliged to pay the employees
during the suspension of operations, viz.:
x x x [T]he cessation construction activities at the end of every

project is a foreseeable suspension work. Of course, no compensation
can be demanded from the employer because the stoppage of operations at
the end of a project and before the staii of a new one is reguJar and expected
by both paiiies to the labor relations. Similar to the case of regular seasonal
employees:, the employment relation is not severed by merely being
suspended. The employees are, strictly speaking, not separated from
services but merely on leave of absence without pay until they are
reemployed. Thus we cannot affinn the argument that non-payment of
salary or non-inclusion in the payroll and the opp01iunity to seek other
employment denote project employment. 157 (Citations omitted)
By analogy, and as applied to the me1nbers of the IJM System work

pool, even if they are allowed to offer their services to other employers during
the lulls in the production business, they shall still be regarded as regular
~mployees who are simply "on leave" during such periods of suspension in
production. On the part of ABS-CBN, it shall not be obliged to pay the
employees during such temporary breaks.
It bears stressing that similar to the caveat laid down in Maraguinot, the
Court wishes to allay any fears that the instant ruling unduly burdens an
employer, or that it unreas·onably coddles labor at the expense of capital. This
decision is simply a "judicial recognition of the employment status of a project
or work pool employee in accordance with what is fait accompli, i.e., the
continuous re-hiring by the e1nployer of project or work pool employees who
perform tasks necessary or desirable to the employer's usual business or
trade." 158
Consequently, as regular work pool employees of ABS-CBN, the

workers are entitled to the following benefits:
The workers in the regularization

cases are entitled to all tlte benefits
under the CBA
As regular employees of ABS-CBN, the workers in G.R. Nos. 202495

& 202497 (ABS-CBN Corporation v. Payonan, et al.), and G.R. No. 202481,
155
Supra note 148.
156
Id. at 280-281.
157
Id. at 281.
158
Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, supra note 118, at 605.
Decision 35 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
(Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) shall be included

in the rank-and-file unit of the CBA. 159
InFulachev. ABS-CBN BroadcastingCorp. 160 andNazareno, the Court

categorically declared that the workers, who were production assistants~
camerainen, assistant editor/teleprompter operators, video editors, and VTR
operators, being regular e1nployees of ABS-CBN, are part of the bargaining
unit of ABS-CBN's rank-and-file employees. As such, they are entitled to the
CBA benefits ~s a matter of law and contract.
Here, the CBA states in no unce1iain terms that the ''appropriate

bargaining unit shall [consist of] the regular rank and file employees of[ABS-
CBN], but shall not include: (a) personnel classified as Supervisor and
Confidential e1nployees; (b) personnel who are on. 'casual' or 'probationary'
status xx x; and (c) [p]ersonnel who are on 'contract' status or who are paid
for specified units of work such as writer-producers, talent artists and
singers." 161 Clearly, the workers are indeed members of the bargaining unit,
as they are regular rank-and-file employees and do not belong to any of the
excluded categories.
The workers in the illegal dismissal

cases are entitled to reinstatement
and backwages and other benefits
The necessary consequence of a declaration that the workers are regular

employees is the c01Telative rule that the employer shall not dismiss them
except for a just or authorized cause provided in the Labor Code. This is the
essence of the tenurial security guaranteed by the law: "An employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights a1:1d other privileges, and to his full back wages, inclusive
of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary e,quivalent computed .
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement." 162
The facts show that ABS-CBN failed to prove the existence of just or
authorized causes for terminating the services of the workers, save for its
claim that they are talents. Without any notice or warning, the workers were
simply barred from entering the company premises.
Hence, the dismissed workers are entitled to the twin reliefs of

reinstatement ·without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages
computed fr01n the time their compensation was withheld up to the date of
159
In the petitions for regularization (G.R. Nos. 202481 and 202495 & 202497), the workers likewise
beseech the· Court for their inclusion in the CBA with ABS-CBN.
160
624 Phil. 562 (2010).
161
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497), Vol. IV, p. 2510.
162
LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Alt. 294.
Decision 36 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
their actual reinstatement. 1<?3
However, consistent with the .finding that the workers are regular work
pool employees, then, following Maraguinot, the workers are deemed
reinstated to the work pool and are entitled to backwages, subject to
deductions as stated below, and other benefits.
In the computation of bcJ.ckwages, the Court shall apply the principles

of "suspension of work" and "no pay" between the end of one program and
the start of a new one. Thus, similar to Maraguinot, the period during which
the workers' respective production units .were not shooting any television
programs should be deducted from the computation of their backwages.
In connection therewith, ABS-CBN is directed to provide the LA the

necessary data to determine the periods of the programs for which each worker
would have been employed were it not for his/her dismissal. In turn, the LA
is directed to deduct the periods between the end of one program and the start,
of the new one from the computation of the backwages.
In case of ABS-CBN's failure to provide the data above, the workers

shall be entitled to backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal until
their reinstatement following the finality of this Decision, without any
deductions.
In addition to their backwages, the workers are likewise entitled to their

1nonetary benefits consisting of their 13 th month pay and holiday pay, pursuant
to the applicable labor and tax laws, 164 computed in the same manner provided
above, by deducting the ainounts corresponding to the periods that they were
not engaged in the production of programs. Notably, in determining the
employee's entitlement to monetary claims, the burden of proof is shifted
from the employer or the employee, depending on the monetary claim sought.
Essentially, in claims for payment of monetary benefits such as holiday pay
and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. This
standard follows the basic rule that in all illegal dismissal cases the burden
rests on the defendant to prove payment rather than on the plaintiff to prove
non-payment. This, likewise, stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel
files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents - which
will show that the differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of
workers have been paid - are not in the possession oftlie worker, but are in
the custody and control of the employer. 165 ABS-CBN failed to adduce
evidence to prove its payment of the afore1nentioned benefits.
163
JCT Marketing Services, Inc. v. Sales, 769 Phil. 498, 524 (2015), citing Reyes v. RP Guardians Security
Agency, Inc., 708 Phil. 598, 604-605 (2013).
164
Presidential Decree No. 851, REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYERS TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES A IJTH MONTH
PAY; Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13 th Month Pay Law; and R.A. No. 10963 or the
"TAX REFORM FOR ACCELERATION AND INCLUSION (TRAIN) LAW," Sec. 9.
165
Loon v. Power Master Inc., 723 Phil. 515, 531-532 (2013).
1
<• •
Decision 37 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
However, as to the workers' claims for overti1ne pay, premium pay for.
holidays and rest days, and night shift differential pay, the burden is shifted
on the employee, as these· monetary claims are not incurred in the normal
course of business. 166 Considering that the workers failed to prove that they
actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day,
and that they in fact worked on holidays and rest days, 167 the Court is
constrained to deny their claim for these benefits.
As for the workers' prayer for moral and exemplary damages, the Court
denies these reliefs for lack of factual and legal basis. Nonetheless, the
workers are entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent ( 10%) of the
total monetary award, since the instant case includes a claim for unlawfully
withheld wages, and the workers were forced to litigate to protect their
rights. 168 All amounts due shall earn a legal interest of six percent (6%) per
annum. 169
WHEREFORE, m light of the foregoing, the Court renders the

following disposition:
1. The petition in Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting

Corporation (G.R. No. 202481) is GRANTED. The Decision dated
January 27, 2012 and the Resolution dated June 26, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117885 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. .
2. The petition inABS-CBN Corporation v. Payonan et al. (G.R. Nos. 1
202495 & 202497) is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28,

2011 and the Resolution dated June 27, 2012 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 108552 and 108976 are AFFIRMED.
3. The petition in ABS-CBN Corporation v. Ong, et al. (G.R. No.

222057) is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated February 24,
2015 and the Resolution dated December 21, 2015 of the Com1 of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 122068 are AFFIRMED.
4. The petition in ABS-CBN Corporation, et al. v. Lazares (G.R. No.

224879) is DENIED. The Decision dated January 4, 2016 and the'
Resolution dated May 27, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 122824 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by
DELETING the award of moral damages and exemplary damages.
5. The petition in ABS-CBN Corporation v. Zaballa IIL et al. (G.R.

No. 225874) is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12, 2016 and
166
Id. at citing Lagatic v. 349 Phil. 172, 185-186 (1998).
161 Id.
168
LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Ali. 111.
169
Nacar V. Gallery Fra11zes, et al., 716 Phil. 267, 278-279 (2013).
1)
Decision 38 G.R. Nos._202481, 202495 &

202497,210165,219125,22205~
224879, 225101 and 225874
the Resolution dated July 15, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-
G.R. SP No. 131576 are AFFIRMED. -
6. The petition in Cajoles, Jr., et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting

Corporation (G.R. No. 219125) is GRANTED. The Decision dated
August 19, 2014 and the Resolution dated June 1,8, 2015 of the Court
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 122424, are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
7. The petition in Perez, et al. v. ABtCBN Broadcasting Corporation

(G.R. No. 225101) is GRANTED The Decision dated January 28,
1
2016 and the Resolution dated Mar 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 125868, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
I
I
I
8. The petition in Dablo, et al. v. AB~[CBN Broadcasting Corporation,

et al. (G.R. No. 210165) is GRA.i,TED. The Decision dated April
30, 2013 and the Resolution dated/~ovember 20, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 12f635 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. I
The employees who were illegally dislssed shall be deemed reinstated·

to the work pool. They are likewise entitled to backwages and other benefits
from the time of their illegal dismissal uptb actiial reinstatement, deducting
therefrom the periods corresponding to whe~ ABS-CBN Corporation was not
undertaking the production of programs. I
Let this case be remanded to the1 Labor Arbiter for the proper
computation of the monetary benefits due to Fach of the workers in accordance
with the guidelines in this Decision. All amounts awarded shall earn a legal
I
interest of six percent (6%) per annum , . om the date of finality of this
Decision until full pay1nent.
ABS-CBN Corporation is hereby ordered to provide the necessary data

to assist the Labor Arbiter in computing thel amount of backwages due to the
e1nployees. I
I
SO ORDERED. I
stice
Decision 39 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057;
224879, 225101 and 225874
WE CONCUR:
(No part)
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Justice
ESTELA ~-~-BERNAB -:
Associate Justice· Associate Justice
~d~ (!_~~ ,
A L ~ ~ G. GESMUNDO EC. ~YIE ' JR.
..( Associate Justice ssociate Jus ce
(No part)
ROSMARI D. CARANDANG
Associate Justice Associate Justice
(No part)
AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER HEN
(No part)
EDG~LOSSANTOS SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Decision 40 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &
202497,210165,219125,222057,
224879, 225101 and 225874
(On leave)
PRISCILLA BALTAZAR-PADILLA
Associate Justice
; '
\
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assignedto the writer of the opinion of the Court.

Del Rosario Vs ABS-CBN - GR 202481 - September 8, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Rosario Vs ABS-CBN - GR 202481 - September 8, 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Rosario Vs ABS-CBN - GR 202481 - September 8, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3Repttblit of tbe flbiHppiues

ALBERT · B. DEL ROSARIO,. . G.R. No. 202481

CAJOLES, JR., ALEX R. CARLOS,

Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

PAUL . VIRAY, '. .

JOSEPH R. ONG, FERNANDO

COURT OF APPEALS- SPECIAL

G.R. No. 202481

Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcastin_g Corporation

In Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No.

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:

· WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October

G.R. Nos. 202495 & 202497

ABS-CB1V Corporation v. Payonan, et al.

In ABS-CBN Corporation v. Payonan, et al. (G.R. Nos. 202495 &

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:

1 Rollo (G.R. No. 202481), v·ol. I, pp. 8-52.

J Decision G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495 &

WHEREFORE, upon the fm~egoing, the petitions are GRANTED.

In CA-GR SP No. 108552, the Resolutions dated 23 October 2008

In CA-GR SP No. 108976, the Resolutions dated 18 December 2008

Illegal Dismissal Cases

G.R. No. 222057

ABS-CBN Corporation v. Ong, et al.

In ABS-CBN Corporation v. Ong, et al. (G.R. No. 222057), 9 ABS-CBN

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: p

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. ABS-

G.R. No. 224879

ABS-CBN Corporation, et al. v. Lozares

InABS-CBNCorporation, etal. v. Lazares (G.R. No. 224879), 14 ABS-

The decretal portion of the assailed CA Decision reads:

We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 25 August 2011, and the

G~R. No. 225874

ABS-CBN Corporation v. Zaballa Ill, et al.

In ABS-CBN Corporation v. Zaballa III, et al. (G.R. No. 225874), 18

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

G.R. No. 219125

Cajoles, Jr., et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation

In Cajoles, Jr., et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No.

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the petition is

Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495,&

G.R. No. 225101

Perez, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation

In Perez, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No.

The dispositive p01iion of the assailed CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The

Dablo, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, et al.

In Dab/a, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, et al. (G.R. No:

The dispositive p011ion of the CA Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack

The following facts are common to the eight petitions:

ABS-CBN, fonnerly known as ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,

On various dates, ABS-CBNhired the services of the following persons

Francis M. Lubugin December 1999

Joseph Armand B. Mamorno June 1998

G.R. No. 202481 (Del Rosario, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting