10.Farley v Abscbn

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#_ftn4


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


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


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#_ftn9


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#_ftn14


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#_ftn18


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


8/18

"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


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#_ftn25


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#_ftn27


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


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, to&ether 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.


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.


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#_ftn31


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


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.


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


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

10.Farley v Abscbn

Documents

10.Farley v Abscbn