Fulache vs ABS-CBN Digest

Fulache vs ABS-CBN Corporation AUTHOR: Magsino, Patricia Marie C. [G.R. No. 183810, Jan. 21, 2010] NOTES: TOPIC: Bargaining unit PONENTE: Brion, J. FACTS: 1.) REGULARIZATION CASE  Petitioners Fulache et. al. filed two separate complaints for regularization, unfair labor practices, and severa money claims (regularization case) against ABS-CBM Broadcasting Corporation-Cebu  Petitioners alleged that ABS-CBN and ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union executed a collectiv bargaining agreement, they only became aware of it upon obtaining copied of the agreement  The petitioners learned that they were excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered them temporar and not regular employees  They claim that they had already rendered more than a year’ service and should be recognized as regula employees entitled to security of tenure and to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees  ABS-CBN claims Fulache et. al. are mere talents and are considered independent contractors, contracted on case-to-case basis, contracts are terminated once program, production, or segment is completed. They are pai a pre-arranged consideration called talent fee  LABOR ARBITER: It held that the petitioners are regular employees and are entitled to the benefit privileges of regular employee  ABS-CBN appealed the ruling to the NLRC contending that the petitioner are independent contractors and no regular employees

2.) ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASE  Pending appeal of the Regularization case, ABS-CBN dismissed the petitioners for their refusal to sign u contracts of employment with service contractor Able Services  The petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal  LABOR ARBITER: It held that the petitioners were dismissed due to redundancy, an authorized cause unde the law and awarded them separation pay of 1 month’s salary for every year of service  ABS-CBN appealed to NLRC, and it held that there was an employer-employee relationship betwee petitioners and ABS-CBN as the company exercised control over the petitioners in the performance of the work, they were engaged in the performance of activities usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN’s trad or business, they can’t be considered contractual employees as they were not paid for the result of their wor but on a monthly basis and were required to do their work in accordance with the company’s schedule  NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling and found the petitioners were illegally dismissed and awarded them backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, they were also awarded CBA benefits  The petitioners and ABS-CBN both moved for reconsideration and NLRC resolved these motions b reinstating the LA’s decision 

NLRC ruling: As for the regularization case, it held that the petitioners were regular employees entitled to th benefits and privileges of regular employees. As for the illegal dismissal case, the petitioners while recognized a regular employees, they were declared dismissed due to redundancy.



The petitioners moved for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 charging the NLRC with grave abuse o discretion, the CA resolved this by ruling that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed as they were dismisse due to redundancy



Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied this motion hence the petition

ISSUE(S): 1.) Are the petitioners regular employees? 2.) Are the petitioners entitled to CBA benefits? 3.) Were the petitioners illegally dismissed? HELD: 1. YES. 2. YES. 3. YES. RATIO:

1.) The petitioners are regular employees; the company exercised control over the petitioners in the performance o their work, they were engaged in the performance of activities usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN’s trad or business, they can’t be considered contractual employees as they were not paid for the result of their work bu on a monthly basis and were required to do their work in accordance with the company’s schedule

2.) As regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit are entitled to benefits as matter of law. The petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are rank-and-fil employees and do not belong to any of the excluded categories.

3.) The dismissal of the petitioners were found to be attended with bad faith. ABS-CBN took matters on their ow hands and terminated the petitioner’s services pending its own appeal. ABS-CBN intended to transfer th petitioner and their services to a service contractor, and dismissed them when they refused to sign with the servic contractor. ABS-CBN forgot that by claiming redundancy; they impliedly admitted that the petitioners wer regular employees and can only be terminated by authorized causes defined under the Labor Code.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):