8/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
1/18
Republic of thePhilippinesSupreme Court
Manila
ECOND DIVI ION
FARLEY FULACHE, MANOLO
JABONERO, A!"
CAS#"LLO, JEFFREY
LA$UN%A,
MA$ALENA MAL"$&ON
B"$NO, FRANC"SCO
CABAS, JR', HAR!EY
PONCE an( ALAN C'
ALMENRAS,
Petitioners,
- versus -
ABS&CBN BROACAS#"N$
CORPORA#"ON,
Respondent.
$'R' No' )*+*)
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION, DE CA!"IO,
ABAD, #nd
PERE$,JJ.
Pro%ulted:
'#nu#r( )*, )+*+
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
E C " S " O N
BR"ON,J':
"he petition for revie on certiorari*/no before us see0s to set #side the
decision)/#nd resolution1/of the Court of Appe#ls, Nineteenth Division 2CA3
pro%ulted on 4#rch )5, )++6 #nd 'ul( 6, )++6, respectivel(, in CA- 7.R. !P No.+*616.8/
#he Ante-e(ents
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn48/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
2/18
#he Re.ulari/ation Case'
In 'une )++*, petitioners 9#rle( 9ul#che, 4#nolo '#bonero, D#vid C#stillo, 'effre(
#&un#d, 4#&d#len# 4#li&-on Bi&no, 9r#ncisco C#b#s, 'r., ;#rve( Ponce #nd Al#n C.Al%endr#s 2petitioners3 #nd Cresente Atinen 2Atinen3 filed to sep#r#te co%pl#ints for
re&ul#ri#tion, unf#ir l#bor pr#ctice #nd sever#l %one( cl#i%s 2regularization case3
#inst AB!-CBN Bro#dc#stin& Corpor#tion-Cebu 2ABS-CBN3. 9ul#che #nd C#stillo
ere drivers
8/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
3/18
AB!-CBN further cl#i%ed th#t to cope ith fluctu#tin& business conditions, it
contr#cts on # c#se-to-c#se b#sis the services of persons ho possess the necess#r( t#lent,
s0ills, tr#inin&, epertise or u#lific#tions to %eet the reuire%ents of its pro&r#%s #nd
productions. "hese contr#cted persons #re c#lled FtalentsG #nd #re considered
independent contr#ctors ho offer their services to bro#dc#stin& co%p#nies.
Inste#d of s#l#ries, AB!-CBN pointed out th#t t#lents #re p#id # pre-#rr#n&ed
consider#tion c#lled Ftalent feeG t#0en fro% the bud&et of # p#rticul#r pro&r#% #nd
subect to # ten percent 2*+H3 ithholdin& t#. "#lents do not under&o prob#tion. "heir
services #re en&ed for # specific pro&r#% or production, or # se&%ent thereof. "heir
contr#cts #re ter%in#ted once the pro&r#%, production or se&%ent is co%pleted.
AB!-CBN #lle&ed th#t the petitioners services ere contr#cted on v#rious d#tes
b( its Cebu st#tion #s independent contr#ctors
8/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
4/18
In defense, AB!-CBN #lle&ed th#t even before the l#bor #rbiter rendered his
decision of '#nu#r( *@, )++) in the re&ul#ri#tion c#se, it h#d #lre#d( undert#0en #
co%prehensive revie of its eistin& orni#tion#l structure to #ddress its oper#tion#l
reuire%ents. It then decided to course throu&h le&iti%#te service contr#ctors #ll drivin&,
%essen&eri#l, #nitori#l, utilit(, %#0e-up, #rdrobe #nd securit( services for both the
4etro 4#nil# #nd provinci#l st#tions, to i%prove its oper#tions #nd to %#0e the% %ore
econo%ic#ll( vi#ble. 9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo, #&un#d #nd Atinen ere not sin&led
out for dis%iss#l= #s drivers, the( ere dis%issed bec#use the( belon&ed to # ob c#te&or(
th#t h#d #lre#d( been contr#cted out. It #r&ued th#t even if the petitioners h#d been found
to h#ve been illell( dis%issed, their reinst#te%ent h#d beco%e # ph(sic#l i%possibilit(
bec#use their e%plo(er-e%plo(ee rel#tionships h#d been str#ined #nd th#t Atinen h#d
eecuted # uitcl#i% #nd rele#se.
In her April )*, )++1 decision in the illel dis%iss#l c#se,@/#bor Arbiter
Rendoue upheld the v#lidit( of AB!-CBNs contr#ctin& out of cert#in or0 or services
in its oper#tions. "he l#bor #rbiter found th#t petitioners 9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo,
#&un#d #nd Atinen h#d been dis%issed due to redund#nc(, #n #uthoried c#use under
the l#.6/;e ##rded the% sep#r#tion p#( of one 2*3 %onths s#l#r( for ever( (e#r of
service.
Ain, AB!-CBN #ppe#led to the NRC hich rendered on Dece%ber *5, )++8 #
oint decision on the re&ul#ri#tion #nd illel dis%iss#l c#ses./ "he NRC ruled th#t
there #s #n e%plo(er-e%plo(ee rel#tionship beteen the petitioners #nd AB!-CBN #s
the co%p#n( eercised control over the petitioners in the perfor%#nce of their or0= the
petitioners ere re&ul#r e%plo(ees bec#use the( ere en&ed to perfor% #ctivities
usu#ll( necess#r( or desir#ble in AB!-CBNs tr#de or business= the( c#nnot be
considered contr#ctu#l e%plo(ees since the( ere not p#id for the result of their or0,
but on # %onthl( b#sis #nd ere reuired to do their or0 in #ccord#nce ith the
co%p#n(s schedule. "he NRC thus #ffir%ed ith %odific#tion the l#bor #rbiters
re&ul#ri#tion decision of '#nu#r( *@, )++), #ddition#ll( &r#ntin& the petitioners CBAbenefits #nd privile&es.
"he NRC reversed the l#bor #rbiters rulin& in the illel dis%iss#l c#se= it found
th#t petitioners 9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo, #&un#d #nd Atinen h#d been illell(
dis%issed #nd ##rded the% b#c0#&es #nd sep#r#tion p#( in lieu of reinst#te%ent.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn98/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
5/18
nder both c#ses, the petitioners ere ##rded CBA benefits #nd privile&es fro% the
ti%e the( bec#%e re&ul#r e%plo(ees up to the ti%e of their dis%iss#l.
"he petitioners %oved for reconsider#tion, contendin& th#t 9ul#che, '#bonero,
C#stillo #nd #&un#d #re entitled to reinst#te%ent #nd full b#c0#&es, s#l#r( incre#ses
#nd other CBA benefits #s ell #s *1 th%onth p#(, c#sh conversion of sic0 #nd v#c#tion
le#ves, %edic#l #nd dent#l #llo#nces, educ#tion#l benefits #nd service ##rds. Atinen
#ppe#red to h#ve been ecluded fro% the %otion #nd there #s no shoin& th#t he
sou&ht reconsider#tion on his on.
AB!-CBN li0eise %oved for the reconsider#tion of the decision, reiter#tin& th#t
9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo #nd #&un#d ere independent contr#ctors, hose servicesh#d been ter%in#ted due to redund#nc(= thus, no b#c0#&es should h#ve been
##rded. It further #r&ued th#t the petitioners ere not entitled to the CBA benefits
bec#use the( never cl#i%ed these benefits in their position p#per before the l#bor #rbiter
hile the NRC f#iled to %#0e # cle#r #nd positive findin& th#t th#t the( ere p#rt of the
b#rinin& unit= neither #s there evidence to support this findin&.
"he NRC resolved the %otions for reconsider#tion on 4#rch )8, )++?*+/b(
reinst#tin& the to sep#r#te decisions of the l#bor #rbiter d#ted '#nu#r( *@, )++),
**/#ndApril )*, )++1,*)/respectivel(. "hus, on the re&ul#ri#tion issue, the NRC stood
b( the rulin& th#t the petitioners ere re&ul#r e%plo(ees entitled to the benefits #nd
privile&es of re&ul#r e%plo(ees. On the illel dis%iss#l c#se, the petitioners, hile
reco&nied #s re&ul#r e%plo(ees, ere decl#red dis%issed due to redund#nc(. "he
NRC denied the petitioners second %otion for reconsider#tion in its order of 4#( 1*,
)++? for bein& # prohibited ple#din&.*1/
#he CA Petition an( e-ision
"he petitioners ent to the CA throu&h # petition for certiorariunder Rule ?5 of
the Rules of Court.*8/ "he( ch#r&ed the NRC ith &r#ve #buse of discretion in: 2*3
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn148/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
6/18
den(in& the% the benefits under the CBA= 2)3 findin& no evidence th#t the( #re p#rt of
the co%p#n(s b#rinin& unit= 213 not reinst#tin& #nd ##rdin& b#c0#&es to 9ul#che,
'#bonero, C#stillo #nd #&un#d= #nd 283 rulin& th#t the( #re not entitled to d#%#&es #nd
#ttorne(s fees.
AB!-CBN, on the other h#nd, uestioned the propriet( of the petitioners use of
# certioraripetition. It #r&ued th#t the proper re%ed( for the petitioners #s #n #ppe#l
fro% the reinst#ted decisions of the l#bor #rbiter.
In its decision of 4#rch )5, )++6,*5/the #ppell#te court brushed #side AB!-
CBNs procedur#l uestion, holdin& th#t the petition #s ustified bec#use there is no
pl#in, speed( or #deu#te re%ed( fro% # fin#l decision, order or resolution of the NRC=
the reinst#te%ent of the l#bor #rbiters decisions did not %e#n th#t the proceedin&sreverted b#c0 to the level of the #rbiter. It li0eise #ffir%ed the NRC rulin& th#t the
petitioners second %otion for reconsider#tion is # prohibited ple#din& under the NRC
rules.*?/
On the %erits of the c#se, the CA ruled th#t the petitioners f#iled to prove their
cl#i% to CBA benefits since the( never r#ised the issue in the co%pulsor( #rbitr#tion
proceedin&s, #nd did not #ppe#l the l#bor #rbiters decision hich #s silent on their
entitle%ent to CBA benefits. "he CA found th#t the petitioners f#iled to sho ith
specificit( ho !ection * 2Appropri#te B#rinin& nit3 #nd the other provisions of the
CBA #pplied to the%.
On the illel dis%iss#l issue, the CA upheld the NRC decision reinst#tin& the
l#bor #rbiters April )*, )++1 rulin&.*@/"hus, the drivers J 9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo
#nd #&un#d J ere not illell( dis%issed #s their sep#r#tion fro% the service #s due
to redund#nc(= the( h#d not presented #n( evidence th#t AB!-CBN #bused its
prerotive in contr#ctin& out the services of drivers. Ecept for sep#r#tion p#(, the CA
denied the petitioners cl#i% for b#c0#&es, %or#l #nd ee%pl#r( d#%#&es, #nd
#ttorne(s fees.
"he petitioners %oved for reconsider#tion, but the CA denied the %otion in #
resolution pro%ulted on 'ul( 6, )++6.*6/ ;ence, the present petition.
#he Petition
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn188/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
7/18
"he petitioners ch#llen&e the CA rulin& on both procedur#l #nd subst#ntive
&rounds. As procedur#l uestions, the( sub%it th#t the CA erred in: 2*3 #ffir%in& the
NRC resolution hich reversed its on decision= 2)3 sust#inin& the NRC rulin& th#t
their second %otion for reconsider#tion is # prohibited ple#din&= 213 not rulin& th#t AB!-CBN #d%itted in its position p#per before the l#bor #rbiter th#t the( ere %e%bers of the
b#rinin& unit #s the %#tter #s not r#ised in its #ppe#l to the NRC= #nd, 283 not rulin&
th#t notithst#ndin& their f#ilure to #ppe#l fro% the first decision of the #bor Arbiter,
the( c#n still p#rticip#te in the #ppe#l filed b( AB!-CBN rerdin& their e%plo(%ent
st#tus.
On the subst#ntive #spect, the petitioners contend th#t the CA &r#vel( erred in: 2*3
not considerin& the evidence sub%itted to the NRC on #ppe#l to bolster their cl#i% th#t
the( ere %e%bers of the b#rinin& unit #nd therefore entitled to the CBA benefits= 2)3
not orderin& AB!-CBN to p#( the petitioners s#l#ries, #llo#nces #nd CBA benefits
#fter the NRC h#s decl#red th#t the( ere re&ul#r e%plo(ees of AB!-CBN= 213 not
rulin& th#t under eistin& urisprudence, the position of driver c#nnot be decl#red
redund#nt, #nd th#t the petitioners-drivers ere illell( dis%issed= #nd, 283 not rulin&
th#t the petitioners ere entitled to d#%#&es #nd #ttorne(s fees.
"he petitioners #r&ue th#t the NRC resolution of 4#rch )8, )++?*/ hich set
#side its oint decision of Dece%ber *5, )++8
)+/
#nd reinst#ted the tin decisions of thel#bor #rbiter,)*/h#d the effect of pro%ultin& # ne decision b#sed on issues th#t ere
not r#ised in AB!-CBNs p#rti#l #ppe#l to the NRC. "he( sub%it th#t the NRC
should h#ve #lloed their second %otion for reconsider#tion so th#t it %#( be #ble to
euit#bl( ev#lu#te the p#rties Fconflicting #ersions of the factsG inste#d of den(in& the
%otion on # %ere technic#lit(.
On the uestion of their CBA cover#&e, the petitioners contend th#t the CA erred in
not considerin& th#t AB!-CBN #d%itted their %e%bership in the b#rinin& unit, for
nohere in its p#rti#l #ppe#l fro% the l#bor #rbiters decision in the re&ul#ri#tion c#se
did it #lle&e th#t the petitioners f#iled to prove th#t the( #re %e%bers of the b#rinin&
unit= inste#d, the co%p#n( stood b( its position th#t the petitioners ere not entitled to
the CBA benefits since the( ere independent contr#ctors
8/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
8/18
"he petitioners sub%it th#t hile the( did not #ppe#l the l#bor #rbiters decision in
the re&ul#ri#tion c#se, AB!-CBN r#ised the e%plo(%ent st#tus issue in its on #ppe#l
to the NRC= this #ppe#l l#id this issue open for revie. "he( #r&ue th#t the( could still
p#rticip#te in the #ppe#l proceedin&s #t the NRC= pursue their position on the issue= #nd
introduce evidence #s the( did in their repl( to the co%p#n(s #ppe#l. ))/ "he( be#il the
#ppell#te courts f#ilure to consider the evidence the( presented to the NRC 2consistin&
of docu%ents #nd sorn st#te%ents enu%er#tin& the #ctivities the( #re perfor%in&3
cle#rl( indic#tin& th#t the( #re p#rt of the r#n0-#nd-file b#rinin& unit #t AB!-CBN.
"he petitioners then proceeded to describe the or0 the( render for the
co%p#n(. Collectivel(, the( cl#i% th#t the( or0 #s #ssist#nts in the production of the
Cebu#no nes pro&r#% bro#dc#st d#il( over AB!-CBN Ch#nnel 1, #s follos: 9ul#che,
'#bonero, C#stillo #nd #&un#d #s production #ssist#nts to drive the nes te#%= Ponce#nd Al%endr#s, to shoot scenes #nd events ith the use of c#%er#s oned b( AB!-CBN=
4#li&-on Bi&no, #s studio production #ssist#nt #nd #ssist#nt editor
8/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
9/18
#pproved b( the %#n#&e%ent of the co%p#n(, #nd did not even bother to sho h( it
considered the positions of drivers superfluous #nd unnecess#r(= it is not true th#t the
positions of drivers no lon&er eisted bec#use these positions ere contr#cted out to #n
#&enc( th#t, in turn, recruited four drivers to t#0e the pl#ce of 9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo
#nd #&un#d. As further indic#tion th#t the redund#nc( #ction #inst the four drivers
#s done in b#d f#ith, the petitioners c#ll #ttention to AB!-CBNs #bolition of the
position of drivers #fter the l#bor #rbiter rendered her decision decl#rin& 9ul#che,
'#bonero, C#stillo #nd #&un#d re&ul#r co%p#n( e%plo(ees. "he petitioners obect to
the dis%iss#l of the four drivers hen the( refused to si&n resi&n#tion letters #nd oin
Able !ervices, # contr#ctin& #&enc(, contendin& th#t the four h#d no re#son to resi&n #fter
the l#bor #rbiter decl#red the% re&ul#r co%p#n( e%plo(ees.
!ince their dis%iss#l #s illel #nd #ttended b( b#d f#ith, the petitioners insistth#t the( should be reinst#ted ith b#c0#&es, #nd should li0eise be ##rded %or#l #nd
ee%pl#r( d#%#&es, #nd #ttorne(s fees.
#he Case 0or ABS&CBN
In its Co%%ent filed on '#nu#r( )6, )++,)5/AB!-CBN presents sever#l &rounds
hich %#( be s(nthesied #s follos:
*. "he petition r#ises uestions of f#ct #nd not of l#.
). "he CA co%%itted no error in #ffir%in& the resolution of the NRC reinst#tin&
the decisions of the l#bor #rbiter.
AB!-CBN sub%its th#t the petition should be dis%issed for h#vin& r#ised
uestions of f#ct #nd not of l# in viol#tion of Rule 85 of the Rules of Court. It #r&ues
th#t the uestion of hether the petitioners ere covered b( the CBA 2#nd therefore
entitled to the CBA benefits3 #nd hether the petitioners ere illell( dis%issed bec#use
of redund#nc(, #re f#ctu#l uestions th#t c#nnot be revieed on certioraribec#use theCourt is not # trier of f#cts.
AB!-CBN dis%isses the petitioners issues #nd #r&u%ents #s %ere reh#sh of h#t
the( r#ised in their ple#din&s ith the CA #nd #s &rounds th#t do not #rr#nt further
consider#tion. It further contends th#t bec#use the petitioners did not #ppe#l the l#bor
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn258/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
10/18
#rbiter decisions, these decisions h#d l#psed to fin#lit( #nd could no lon&er be the subect
of # petition for certiorari= the petitioners c#nnot obt#in fro% the #ppell#te court
#ffir%#tive relief other th#n those &r#nted in the #ppe#led decision. It #lso #r&ues th#t the
NRC did not co%%it #n( &r#ve #buse of discretion in reinst#tin& the tin decisions of
the l#bor #rbiter, thereb( #ffir%in& th#t no CBA benefits c#n be ##rded to the
petitioners= in the #bsence of #n( illel dis%iss#l, the petitioners ere not entitled to
reinst#te%ent, b#c0#&es, d#%#&es, #nd #ttorne(s fees.
#he Court1s Rulin.
Ke first resolve the p#rties procedur#l uestions.
AB!-CBN #nts the petition to be dis%issed outri&ht for its #lle&ed f#ilure toco%pl( ith the reuire%ent of Rule 85 of the Rules of Court th#t the petition r#ises onl(
uestions of l#.)?/
Ke find no i%propriet( in the petition fro% the st#ndpoint of Rule 85. "he
petitioners do not uestion the findin&s of f#cts of the #ss#iled decisions. "he( uestion
the %is#pplic#tion of the l# #nd urisprudence on the f#cts reco&nied b( the
decisions. 9or e#%ple, the( uestion #s contr#r( to l# their eclusion fro% the CBA
#fter the( ere reco&nied #s re&ul#r r#n0-#nd-file e%plo(ees of AB!-CBN. "he( #lso
uestion the b#sis in l# of the dis%iss#l of the four drivers #nd the lel propriet( of the
redund#nc( #ction t#0en #inst. "o reiter#te the est#blished distinctions beteen
uestions of l# #nd uestions of f#ct, e uote hereunder our rulin& in Ne Rural Ban*
of Gui"&a +N.. (nc. #. er"ina S. A&a! an! Rafael Susan/)@/
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn278/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
11/18
We reiterate the
distinction between a
question of law and a
question of fact. A
question of law exists when
the doubt or controvers
concerns the correct
a!!lication of law or
"uris!rudence to a certain
set of facts# or when the
issue does not call for an
exa$ination of the
!robative value of the
evidence !resented% the
truth or falsehood of the
facts bein& ad$itted. A
question of fact exists
when a doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or
falsehood of facts or when
the quer invites
calibration of the whole
evidence considerin& $ainl
the credibilit of the
witnesses% the existence
8/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
12/18
and relevanc of s!ecific
surroundin& circu$stances%
as well as their relation
to each other and to the
whole% and the !robabilit
of the situation.
Ke #lso find no error in the CAs #ffir%#tion of the deni#l of the petitioners
second %otion for reconsider#tion of the 4#rch )8, )++? resolution of the NRC
reinst#tin& the l#bor #rbiters tin decisions. "he petitioners second %otion forreconsider#tion #s # prohibited ple#din& under the NRC rules of procedure. )6/
"he p#rties other procedur#l uestions directl( be#r on the %erits of their positions
#nd #re discussed #nd resolved belo, toðer ith the core subst#ntive issues of: 2*3
hether the petitioners, #s re&ul#r e%plo(ees, #re %e%bers of the b#rinin& unit entitled
to CBA benefits= #nd 2)3 hether petitioners 9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo #nd #&un#d
ere illell( dis%issed.
#he Claim 0or CBA Bene0its
2e 0in( merit in the petitioners3 positions.
As re&ul#r e%plo(ees, the petitioners f#ll ithin the cover#&e of the b#rinin&
unit #nd #re therefore entitled to CBA benefits #s # %#tter of l# #nd contr#ct. In the root
decision 2the l#bor #rbiters decision of '#nu#r( *@, )++)3 th#t the NRC #nd CA
#ffir%ed, the l#bor #rbiter decl#red:
2HEREFORE, "N #HE L"$H# OF #HE FORE$O"N$,
t#0in& into #ccount the f#ctu#l scen#rio #nd the evidence #dduced b( bothp#rties, it is decl#red th#t co%pl#in#nts in these c#ses #re RE$ULAREMPLOYEESof respondent AB!-CBN #nd not INDEPENDEN"
CON"RAC"OR! #nd thus henceforth the( #re entitled to the benefits #ndprivile&es #tt#ched to re&ul#r st#tus of their e%plo(%ent.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn288/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
13/18
"his decl#r#tion uneuivoc#ll( settled the petitioners e%plo(%ent st#tus: the( #re
AB!-CBNs re&ul#r e%plo(ees entitled to the benefits #nd privile&es of re&ul#r
e%plo(ees. "hese benefits #nd privile&es #rise fro% entitle%ents under the l#2specific#ll(, the #bor Code #nd its rel#ted l#s3, #nd fro% their e%plo(%ent contr#ct #s
re&ul#r AB!-CBN e%plo(ees, p#rt of hich is the CBA if the( f#ll ithin the cover#&e of
this #&ree%ent. "hus, h#t onl( needs to be resolved #s #n issuefor purposes of
i"ple"entation of the !ecisionis hether the petitioners f#ll ithin CBA cover#&e.
"he p#rties *-)++) CBA provided in its Article I 2!cope of the A&ree%ent3
th#t:)/
!ection *. APPROPRIA"E BAR7AININ7 NI". J "he p#rties#&ree th#t the #ppropri#te b#rinin& unit sh#ll be re.ular ran4&an(&0ile
emplo5eesof AB!-CBN BROADCA!"IN7 CORPORA"ION but sh#ll
not include:
#3 Personnel cl#ssified #s !upervisor #nd Confidenti#l
e%plo(ees=
b3 Personnel ho #re on FcasualG or Fpro&ationar'G st#tus
#s defined in !ection ) hereof=
c3 Personnel ho #re on FcontractG st#tus or ho #re p#idfor specified units of or0 such #s riter-producers, t#lent-
#rtists, #nd sin&ers.
"he inclusion or eclusion of ne ob cl#ssific#tions into
the b#rinin& unit sh#ll be subect of discussion beteen
the CO4PANL #nd the NION. e%ph#sis supplied/
nder these ter%s, the petitioners #re %e%bers of the #ppropri#te b#rinin& unit
bec#use the( #re re&ul#r r#n0-#nd-file e%plo(ees #nd do not belon& to #n( of the
ecluded c#te&ories. !pecific#ll(, nothin& in the records shos th#t the( #re supervisor(or confidenti#l e%plo(ees= neither #re the( c#su#l nor prob#tion#r( e%plo(ees. 4ost
i%port#ntl(, the l#bor #rbiters decision of '#nu#r( *@, )++) J #ffir%ed #ll the #( up to
the CA level J ruled #inst AB!-CBNs sub%ission th#t the( #re independent
contr#ctors. "hus, #s re&ul#r r#n0-#nd-file e%plo(ees, the( f#ll ithin CBA cover#&e
under the CBAs epress ter%s #nd #re entitled to its benefits.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn298/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
14/18
Ke see no %erit in AB!-CBNs #r&u%ents th#t the petitioners #re not entitled to
CBA benefits bec#use: 2*3 the( did not cl#i% these benefits in their position p#per= 2)3 the
NRC did not c#te&oric#ll( rule th#t the petitioners ere %e%bers of the b#rinin& unit=
#nd 213 there #s no evidence of this %e%bership. "o further cl#rif( h#t e st#ted
#bove, CBA cover#&e is not onl( # uestion of f#ct, but of l# #nd contr#ct. "he f#ctu#l
issue is hether the petitioners #re re&ul#r r#n0-#nd-file e%plo(ees of AB!-CBN. "he
tribun#ls belo unifor%l( #nsered this uestion in the #ffir%#tive. 9ro% this f#ctu#l
findin& flos lel effects touchin& on the ter%s #nd conditions of the petitioners re&ul#r
e%plo(%ent. "his #s h#t the l#bor #rbiter %e#nt hen he st#ted in his decision
th#t 0henceforth the' are entitle! to the &enefits an! pri#ileges attache! to regular status
of their e"plo'"ent.) !i&nific#ntl(, AB!-CBN itself posited before this Court th#t 0the
Court of Appeals !i! not gra#el' err nor gra#el' a&use its !iscretion hen it affir"e! theresolution of the NLRC !ate! 1arch 23, 2445 reinstating an! a!opting in toto the
!ecision of the La&or Ar&iter !ate! Januar' 67, 2442 8 8 8.) 1+/"his represent#tion #lone
full( resolves #ll the obections J procedur#l or otherise J AB!-CBN r#ised on the
re&ul#ri#tion issue.
#he ismissal o0 Fula-he, Ja6onero,
Castillo an( La.un/a(
"he ter%in#tion of e%plo(%ent of the four drivers occurred under hi&hl(
uestion#ble circu%st#nces #nd ith pl#in #nd un#dulter#ted b#d f#ith.
"he records sho th#t the re&ul#ri#tion c#se #s in f#ct the root of the resultin&
b#d f#ith #s this c#se ve rise #nd led to the dis%iss#l c#se. irst, the re&ul#ri#tion c#se
#s filed le#din& to the l#bor #rbiters decision1*/decl#rin& the petitioners, includin&
9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo #nd #&un#d, to be re&ul#r e%plo(ees. AB!-CBN #ppe#led
the decision #nd %#int#ined its position th#t the petitioners ere independent contr#ctors.
In the course of this #ppe#l, AB!-CBN too0 %#tters into its on h#nds #nd
ter%in#ted the petitioners services, cle#rl( disrerdin& its on #ppe#l then pendin& ith
the NRC. Not#bl(, this #ppe#l posited th#t the petitioners ere not e%plo(ees 2hose
services therefore could be ter%in#ted throu&h dis%iss#l under the #bor Code3= the(
ere independent contr#ctors hose services could be ter%in#ted #t ill, subect onl( to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn318/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
15/18
the ter%s of their contr#cts. "o ustif( the ter%in#tion of service, the co%p#n( cited
redund#nc( #s its #uthoried c#use but offered no ustific#tor( supportin& evidence. It
%erel( cl#i%ed th#t it #s contr#ctin& out the petitioners #ctivities in the eercise of its
%#n#&e%ent prerotive.
AB!-CBNs intent, of course, b#sed on the records, #s to tr#nsfer the petitioners
#nd their #ctivities to # service contr#ctor ithout p#(in& #n( #ttention to the
reuire%ents of our l#bor l#s= hence, AB!-CBN dis%issed the petitioners hen the(
refused to si&n up ith the service contr#ctor.1)/ In this %#nner, AB!-CBN fell into #
don#rd spir#l of irreconcil#ble lel positions, #ll undert#0en in the hope of s#vin&
itself fro% the decision decl#rin& its Ft#lentsG to be re&ul#r e%plo(ees.
B( doin& #ll these, AB!-CBN for&ot l#bor l# #nd its re#lities.
It for&ot th#t b( cl#i%in& redund#nc( #s #uthoried c#use for dis%iss#l, it
i%pliedl( #d%itted th#t the petitioners ere re&ul#r e%plo(ees hose services, b( l#,
c#n onl( be ter%in#ted for the ust #nd #uthoried c#uses defined under the #bor Code.
i0eise AB!-CBN for&ot th#t it h#d #n eistin& CBA ith # union, hich
#&ree%ent %ust be respected in #n( %ove #ffectin& the securit( of tenure of #ffected
e%plo(ees= otherise, it r#n the ris0 of co%%ittin& unf#ir l#bor pr#ctice J both # cri%in#l
#nd #n #d%inistr#tive offense.11/ It si%il#rl( for&ot th#t #n eercise of %#n#&e%ent
prerotive c#n be v#lid onl( if it is undert#0en in &ood f#ith #nd ith no intent to defe#t
or circu%vent the ri&hts of its e%plo(ees under the l#s or under v#lid #&ree%ents.18/
#stl(, it for&ot th#t there #s # st#ndin& l#bor #rbiters decision th#t, hile not
(et fin#l bec#use of its on pendin& #ppe#l, c#nnot si%pl( be disrerded. B(
i%ple%entin& the dis%iss#l #ction #t the ti%e the l#bor #rbiters rulin& #s under revie,
the co%p#n( unil#ter#ll( neted the effects of the l#bor #rbiters rulin& hile #t the s#%e
ti%e #ppe#llin& the s#%e rulin& to the NRC. "his unil#ter#l %ove is # direct #ffront tothe NRCs #uthorit( #nd #n #buse of the #ppe#l process.
All these &o to sho th#t AB!-CBN #cted ith p#tent b#d f#ith. A close p#r#llel
e c#n dr# to ch#r#cterie this b#d f#ith is the prohibition #inst foru%-shoppin& under
the Rules of Court. In foru%-shoppin&, the Rules ch#r#cterie #s b#d f#ith the #ct of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn348/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
16/18
filin& si%il#r #nd repetitive #ctions for the s#%e c#use ith the intent of so%eho findin&
# f#vor#ble rulin& in one of the #ctions filed. 15/ AB!-CBNs #ctions in the to c#ses, #s
described #bove, #re of the s#%e ch#r#cter, since its obvious intent #s to defe#t #nd
render useless, in # round#bout #( #nd other th#n throu&h the #ppe#l it h#d t#0en, the
l#bor #rbiters decision in the re&ul#ri#tion c#se. 9oru%-shoppin& is pen#lied b( the
dis%iss#l of the #ctions involved. "he pen#lt( #inst AB!-CBN for its b#d f#ith in the
present c#se should be no less.
"he errors #nd o%issions do not belon& to AB!-CBN #lone. "he l#bor #rbiter
hi%self ho h#ndled both c#ses did not see the tot#lit( of the co%p#n(s #ctions for h#t
the( ere. ;e #ppe#red to h#ve blindl( #lloed h#t he &r#nted the petitioners ith his
left h#nd, to be t#0en ##( ith his ri&ht h#nd, un%indful th#t the co%p#n( #lre#d(
ehibited # b#d&e of b#d f#ith in see0in& to ter%in#te the services of the petitionershose re&ul#r st#tus h#d ust been reco&nied. ;e should h#ve reco&nied the b#d f#ith
fro% the ti%in& #lone of AB!-CBNs conscious #nd purposeful %oves to secure the
ulti%#te #i% of #voidin& the re&ul#ri#tion of its so-c#lled Ft#lents.G
"he NRC, for its p#rt, initi#ll( reco&nied the presence of b#d f#ith hen it
ori&in#ll( ruled th#t:
Khile notice h#s been %#de to the e%plo(ees hose positions
ere decl#red redund#nt, the ele%ent of &ood f#ith in #bolishin& the
positions of the co%pl#in#nts #ppe#r to be #ntin&. In f#ct, it re%#insundisputed th#t herein co%pl#in#nts ere ter%in#ted hen the( refused to
si&n #n e%plo(%ent contr#ct ith Able !ervices hich ould %#0e the%
#ppe#r #s e%plo(ees of the #&enc( #nd not of AB!-CBN. !uch #ct b(itself cle#rl( de%onstr#tes b#d f#ith on the p#rt of the respondent in
c#rr(in& out the co%p#n(s redund#nc( pro&r#% . 1?/
On %otion for reconsider#tion b( both p#rties, the NRC reiter#ted its Fpronounce%ent
th#t co%pl#in#nts ere illell( ter%in#ted #s etensivel( discussed in our 'oint Decision
d#ted Dece%ber *5, )++8.G1@/ Let, in #n ineplic#ble turn#round, it reconsidered its oint
decision #nd reinst#ted not onl( the l#bor #rbiters decision of '#nu#r( *@, )++) in the
re&ul#ri#tion c#se, but #lso his illel dis%iss#l decision of April )*, )++1.16/"hus, the
NRC oined the l#bor #rbiter in his error th#t e c#nnot but ch#r#cterie #s &r#ve #buse
of discretion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/183810.htm#_ftn388/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
17/18
"he Court c#nnot le#ve unchec0ed the l#bor tribun#ls p#tent &r#ve #buse of
discretion th#t resulted, ithout doubt, in # &r#ve inustice to the petitioners ho ere
cl#i%in& re&ul#r e%plo(%ent st#tus #nd ere uncere%oniousl( deprived of their
e%plo(%ent soon #fter their re&ul#r st#tus #s reco&nied. nfortun#tel(, the CA f#iled
to detect the l#bor tribun#ls &ross errors in the disposition of the dis%iss#l issue. "hus,
the CA itself oined the s#%e errors the l#bor tribun#ls co%%itted.
"he inustice co%%itted on the petitioners
8/10/2019 10.Farley v Abscbn
18/18
fro% the ti%e the( bec#%e re&ul#r e%plo(ees in #ccord#nce ith eistin&
co%p#n( pr#ctice #nd the #bor Code=
). Decl#rin& illel the dis%iss#l of 9ul#che, '#bonero, C#stillo #nd
#&un#d, #nd orderin& AB!-CBN to i%%edi#tel( reinst#te the% to their
for%er positions ithout loss of seniorit( ri&hts ith full b#c0#&es #nd #ll
other %onet#r( benefits, fro% the ti%e the( ere dis%issed up to the d#te
of their #ctu#l reinst#te%ent=
1. A#rdin& %or#l d#%#&es of P*++,+++.++ e#ch to 9ul#che,
'#bonero, C#stillo #nd #&un#d= #nd,
8. A#rdin& #ttorne(s fees of *+H of the tot#l %onet#r( ##rddecreed in this Decision.
Costs #inst the respondent.
SO ORERE.
AR#URO ' BR"ON
Associ#te 'ustice