ABS-CBN Corp. v. Articona

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 213817. October 6, 2021.]

ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.CHRISTOPHER A. ARTICONA, ANGELA CARLO SAN JUAN, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 213817 (ABS-CBN Corporation v. Christopher A. Articona, Angela Carlo San Juan, et al.). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated February 26, 2014 and the Resolution 3 dated August 1, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 126843, which reversed the Decision 4 dated May 29, 2012 and the Resolution 5 dated July 25, 2012 of the Special Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NCR Nos. 00-07-09348-10, 00-07-09469-10, 00-07-09485-10 and 00-07-09603-10. The CA reinstated the Decision 6 dated December 29, 2011 of the NLRC Fifth Division which in turn reversed the Decision 7 dated January 31, 2011 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) in the consolidated cases docketed as NLRC NCR Case Nos. 07-09348-10, 07-09460-10, 07-09485-10, and 07-09603-10.

The Antecedent Facts

ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) is a company engaged principally in the business of broadcasting television and radio programs in the Philippines. 8

Respondents Christopher A. Articona (Articona), Angelo Carlo P. San Juan (Sari Juan), Alejandrino M. Perez (Perez), and Rufino M. Tala (Tala) were technical crew members working on programs produced and aired by ABS-CBN. 9

ABS-CBN uses various arrangements to obtain programs that it will broadcast to earn advertising revenues. These include block-time selling of airtime to external producers, line production, co-production, or self-production of programs, obtaining the license to air foreign-canned shows, live coverages, licensed programs, or any combination of these arrangements. 10

Due to the nature of the industry, ABS-CBN alleged that it was constrained to produce its own programs to ensure that prime airtime slots would always be booked with shows capable of attracting potential advertisers. To accomplish this, it engaged the services of professionals and technical personnel, referred to as "talents." These talents consisted of, among others, directors, actors, scriptwriters, production staff, camera operators, gaffers and lights operators, outside broadcast van drivers, video engineers, video editors, and audio and sound engineers. 11 caITAC

In 2002, ABS-CBN created the Internal Job Market (IJM) system. This was a database of accredited technical and creative personnel, otherwise known as "talents," who offered their services for a fee. Talents had to undergo specialized trainings and comply with ABS-CBN's accreditation process. ABS-CBN would then assign each talent a competency rating and corresponding professional rate. The IJM was created to eliminate the rigors of scouting and negotiating with talents. 12

Respondents were among the talents engaged by ABS-CBN on various dates. San Juan was accredited under the IJM, system and hired as a camera operator in October 2004. Articona and Perez were similarly accredited and hired as camera operators in April 2005. Tala was hired as a gaffer or lights technician in March 1998 and was subsequently accredited under the IJM system on May 1, 2006. 13

Respondents worked for ABS-CBN continuously for over five years and were assigned to different shows and programs it co-produced and exclusively produced. However, despite their years of service, ABS-CBN did not consider them as regular employees and deprived them of their statutory benefits and other privileges due. 14

Hence, in July 2009, respondents and other IJM talents formed the ABS-CBN IJM Workers' Union to enable them to assert their rights. They registered their union with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and filed a petition for certification election to be recognized as the official bargaining entity of IJM talents. ABS-CBN opposed this petition on the ground that it allegedly had no employer-employee relationship with the IJM talents. 15

ABS-CBN further responded to the efforts to unionize by coercing IJM talents to sign employment contracts and waive their claims for regularization. 16 On June 7, 2010, ABS-CBN offered Tala an employment contract 17 as a remote gaffer/lights technician for the period September 1 to October 30, 2010 to cover the sporting events of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines and National Collegiate Athletic Association. Articona was offered an employment contract 18 as a remote camera operator for the period September 1, 2010 to February 11, 2011 for the show Kristine Series or its replacement program/s. San Juan was offered an employment contract 19 as a remote camera operator for the period August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2013 for the shows PHR: Impostor, Maalaala Mo Kaya, or its replacement program/s. Perez was offered an employment contract 20 as a camera operator for the period August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2013 for the show Kung Tayo'y Magkakalayo, or its replacement program/s.

Respondents refused to sign the employment contracts offered to them since these downgraded their employment status from being regular employees to mere project employees for limited shows and fixed periods. The employment contracts also disregarded their previous years of service and violated their security of tenure and other rights which they attained under the Labor Code. 21

On July 9, 2010, respondents filed their respective complaints 22 against ABS-CBN for regularization and demanding payment of overtime pay, holiday pay and holiday premium, 13th month pay, night shift differential, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

During the pendency of the case, respondents were suddenly excluded from work assignments and barred from entering the company premises. The Human Resources Department informed them that they had no work assignments and would not be given any unless they signed the employment contracts. Respondents refused to give in and amended their complaints to include claims of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. 23

The case was referred to mediation-conciliation proceedings but no settlement was reached by the parties. 24

The parties thereafter filed their respective position papers.

Respondents in their Consolidated Position Paper 25 claimed that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN hired through the IJM system. They presented evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship such as their company identification cards (ID) and payslips bearing ABS-CBN's corporate name on the heading as the employer. cDHAES

In addition, they alleged that ABS-CBN exercised the power to discipline and dismiss them for non-compliance with company rules and regulations. It exercised control over their work assignments and re-assignments, and closely monitored and supervised them through their production supervisors.

Verily, ABS-CBN's actions of removing them from all work assignments and barring their entry to the company promises were tantamount to illegal dismissal. It had no legal justification and violated their right to due process.

On the other hand, ABS-CBN in its Position Paper 26 primarily argued that the complaints should be dismissed for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction since it had no employer-employee relationship with respondents. Respondents were camera operators and gaffer performing functions related to program production, and not to ABS-CBN's principal business of broadcasting.

IJM talents such as respondents were allegedly independent contractors. ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of their work and they were hired because of their existing knowledge, skill, and expertise in their respective fields. ABS-CBN merely instructed them on the results of their work but granted them leeway to accomplish it in the manner they deemed appropriate.

Consequently, the absence of an employer-employee relationship stripped the LA of jurisdiction and negated respondents' claim of illegal dismissal. There is no legal nor factual basis to seek reinstatement and payment of their monetary claims.

The parties filed their respective replies 27 to the position papers. ABS-CBN filed a Rejoinder 28 to respondents' reply.

Labor Arbiter Ruling

The LA rendered its Decision 29 dismissing the complaints against ABS-CBN on the ground of lack of jurisdiction:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Complaints are hereby dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The complaint docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07-09348-10 filed by Jonathan A. del Rosario is accordingly dismissed considering the settlement forged by the parties while the complaint docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07-09603-10 is likewise dismissed for the same reason, insofar as Froilan B. Untalan is concerned, and he is hereby dropped as a party-complainant.

SO ORDERED. 30

The LA held that respondents failed to sufficiently prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship with ABS-CBN. The use of production supervisors to monitor them and ensure that they rendered the required output did not amount to the type of control contemplated under the Labor Code. On the contrary, this proved that ABS-CBN was concerned only with the results of their work and not their means and methods.

It was pronounced that respondents were independent contractors engaged by ABS-CBN for its different programs. It cited as its basis the rulings of the NLRC in Jalog v. NLRC and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.31(Jalog) and Payonan v. NLRC and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation32(Payonan) where it was held that talents similar to respondents were independent contractors and not regular employees.

Dissatisfied, respondents appealed 33 the decision to the NLRC, to which ABS-CBN filed an opposition. 34

NLRC Ruling

The NLRC Fifth Division rendered its Decision 35 granting respondents' appeal and reversing the LA Decision:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered declaring that:

1. Complainants Articona, San Juan, Perez and Tala are regular employees of ABS-CBN who were illegally dismissed and therefore entitled to full backwages, salaries and other privileges, including CBA benefits from the time they were dismissed up to the date of their actual reinstatement:

	Articona	San Juan	Perez	Tala
Backwages	P355,787.53	P506,446.81	P383,805.45	P392,217.12
13th Month Pay	P61,059.08	P79,646.38	P60,623.64	P67,923.46
Holiday Pay	P25,882.89	P34,659.24	P26,328.72	P28,897.44
SILP	P11,742.07	P15,316.58	P11,658.44	P13,062.23
TOTAL	P454,471.57	P636,069.01	P482,416.25	P502,100.25

The details of the computation are hereto attached as Annex "A" and shall form part of this decision.

2. ABS-CBN is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate Articona, San Juan, Perez and Tala to their former positions without loss of seniority rights.

3. Additionally, complainants are awarded individually ten percent (10%) attorney's fees based on their total monetary awards.

SO ORDERED. 36

The NLRC Fifth Division concluded that sufficient evidence was presented to establish the employer-employee relationship between ABS-CBN and respondents. It observed that ABS-CBN had control over respondents' assignments and transfers to various programs, and had production supervisors monitoring them closely on the quality of job performance, regularity of job output, and the manner and methods of accomplishing their work. Moreover, respondents' tasks were clearly necessary or desirable to ABS-CBN's usual business or trade. 37

ABS-CBN filed a Motion for Reconsideration 38 of the decision along with a Motion to Inhibit 39 the NLRC Fifth Division from proceeding with the case. It sought to inhibit the entire NLRC Fifth Division on the ground that there were three other pending cases involving its talents wherein the division ruled against it. Any adverse decision on its motion for reconsideration in this case could then appear to have been rendered with partiality and lack of objectivity.

The NLRC Fifth Division granted ABS-CBN's Motion to Inhibit through an order which respondents questioned in a motion for reconsideration. However, three days after the filing of such motion, and before its resolution, the NLRC precipitately issued Administrative Order No. 03-21, series of 2012, 40 creating a Special Division to take over the case.

On May 29, 2012, the NLRC Special Division rendered its decision 41 granting ABS-CBN's motion for reconsideration. It reversed the initial decision of the NLRC Fifth Division and reinstated the LA decision dismissing respondents' complaints:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents' Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Commission's December 29, 2011 Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Labor Arbiter's January 31, 2011 Decision is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED en toto.

SO ORDERED. 42

The NLRC Special Division revisited the factual findings and determined that the evidence adduced was insufficient to prove the clement of control determinative of an employer-employee relationship. It noted that the control exercised by ABS-CBN focused more ort the results of respondents' work rather than their means and methods.

Respondents sought reconsideration of the decision but was denied through a resolution 43 of the NLRC Special Division for lack of merit. cTDaEH

Undeterred, respondents assailed the decision of the NLRC Special Division through a petition for certiorari44 with the CA.

Respondents claimed that the NLRC Fifth Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it entertained and granted ABS-CBN's motion to inhibit after it had already rendered a decision in the case. This was highly suspicious and contrary to law making the NLRC's order granting such motion void. Moreover, the NLRC Special Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it disregarded the strong evidence adduced and contravened established law in ruling that there was no employer-employee relationship between ABS-CBN and its talents.

ABS-CBN filed a comment 45 to the petition alleging that respondents failed to establish any grave abuse of discretion or raise issues which had not already been passed upon by the labor tribunals. The decision of the NLRC Special Division was consistent with prevailing law.

The parties thereafter filed their respective memoranda. 46

CA Ruling

The CA rendered its assailed Decision 47 granting respondents' petition for certiorari and nullifying the decision of the NLRC Special Division:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated May 29, 2012 and Resolution dated July 25, 2012 of the NLRC Special Division in NLRC LAC NO. 00-07-09318-10 (NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 07-09460-10, NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 07-09485-10 and NLRC-NCR CASE NO. 07-09603-10) are hereby NULLIFIED and VACATED. In their stead, the Filth Division's Decision dated December 29, 2011 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMEDen toto.

SO ORDERED. 48

It held that the NLRC Fifth Division erred in granting ABS-CBN's motion to inhibit. A motion to inhibit must be timely filed at the first instance and not belatedly as ABS-CBN did only after it received an unfavorable decision. ABS-CBN's fear of prejudgment in its other pending cases before the division is more apparent than real. An unsubstantiated allegation of prejudgment is conjecture and does not qualify as a just and valid reason for inhibition under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

It further noted that the NLRC Fifth Division could not be faulted for refusing to apply the Payonan and Jalog rulings since these were still pending review with the Supreme Court and could not serve as a conclusive precedent. 49

It reviewed the decision of the NLRC Fifth Division and found it to have basis in fact and law. Although ABS-CBN claimed it was primarily engaged in the business of broadcasting radio and television programs, one of its secondary purposes in its Articles of Incorporation was to engage in the production of television and radio programs. ABS-CBN's actions clearly showed that it extensively produced its own television programs as part of its business. 50

The NLRC Special Division thus erred in reversing the initial decision of its Fifth Division. Respondents are ABS-CBN's regular employees pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code. They were members of its technical crew for over five years and performed tasks necessary or desirable to ABS-CBN's business. This is likewise consistent with Fulache v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation51(Fulache) where similarly situated technical crew members were deemed regular employees of ABS-CBN and not independent contractors.

ABS-CBN filed a motion for reconsideration 52 of the CA decision, to which respondents filed a comment/opposition. 53 The CA issued a resolution which denied ABS-CBN's motion for reconsideration. CHTAIc

Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

ABS-CBN in its petition 54 claimed that the CA decision was contrary to law and the doctrine established in Jalog. 55 In Jalog, this Court allegedly recognized that talents, similar to respondents, were independent contractors and not regular employees of ABS-CBN.

The CA also gravely erred in relying on the DOLE ruling in In Re: Petition for Certification Election Among Internal Job Market Workpool/ABS-CBN IJM Workers Union of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.56 which was allegedly overturned in a subsequent case. It also misused the ruling in Fulache since the issue there was not whether an employer-employee relationship existed between ABS-CBN and its talents.

Respondents' Arguments

Respondents filed a comment/opposition 57 to the instant petition re-asserting that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN who were illegally dismissed when they were removed from work assignments and barred from entering the company premises. They claimed the existence of their employer-employee relationship with ABS-CBN was proven by the following factual circumstances:

1. ABS-CBN hired respondents as employees through the IJM system. They were given company IDs indicating their status as employees and not as "talents" or independent contractors.

2. ABS-CBN paid for respondents' wages bimonthly. They received payslips bearing ABS-CBN's corporate name and heading as the employer.

3. ABS-CBN had the power to discipline and dismiss respondents. This was demonstrated by a memorandum issued to Articona notifying him of his possible suspension for violations of company rules and regulations.

4. ABS-CBN had the power of control over respondents' means and methods of work. ABS-CBN dictated the date, place, and time when respondents worked. It had the power to re-assign or transfer them to any other shows or programs. There were production supervisors present who monitored and supervised them closely, 58 and an executive producer who could order their work to be re-done if it was not acceptable for ABS-CBN.

Issue

The issue is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in reversing the decision and resolution of the NLRC Special Division and reinstating the decision of the NLRC Fifth Division.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is denied.

The resolution of this case hinges on whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between ABS-CBN and respondents. Although this is a question of fact generally outside the purview of petitions filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, this case qualifies under a recognized exception when the factual findings of labor tribunals are contradictory to each other. 59

It is well-settled in jurisprudence that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined through consideration of the four-fold test which includes: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct, or the so-called "control test." 60 The most crucial among these tests is the control test which requires proof that "the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end." 61

After a judicious review of the case, there are no compelling reasons to reverse the CA decision which was based on substantial evidence and prevailing law. EATCcI

Respondents are regular employees of

This Court en banc in Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation62(Del Rosario) ruled that there is an employer-employee relationship between ABS-CBN and its talents engaged through the IJM system. Applying the four-fold test, it was reasoned as follows:

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.

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 determined solely by ABS-CBN. ABS-CBN likewise withheld taxes and granted the workers PhilHealth benefits. 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.

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. In fact, the workers were required to comply with ABS-CBN's company policies which entailed the prior approval and evaluation of their performance. They were further mandated to attend seminars and workshops to ensure their optimal performance at work. Likewise, ABS-CBN controlled their schedule and work assignments (and re-assignments). 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.

And just like in Begino, the fact that the workers signed a "Talent 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. 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.

Besides, it must be remembered that labor contracts are subject to the police power of the State and are placed on a higher plane than ordinary contracts. 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 employment, cannot stand.

It was additionally emphasized that it was already ruled in the earlier case of Begino v. ABS-CBN Corporation63 that camera operators, editors, and reporters hired as talents were ABS-CBN's employees.

The ruling in Del Rosario further clarified that IJM talents hired in the sell-produced, line-produced, co-produced shows, and live coverages of ABS-CBN were regular employees. This was pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code since these talents performed activities necessary and desirable to ABS-CBN's overall business or trade. It cannot be denied from its activities that the production of its own shows is a critical component of its business. It was pertinently held:

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 and licensed programs, on the one hand, and ABS-CBN, on the other. 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. DHITCc

Notably, an essential characteristic of regular employment as defined in Article 280 of the Labor Code is the performance by the employee of activities considered necessary and desirable to the overall business or trade of the employer. 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 performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety."

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 (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 carry 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 business 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 determine whether the employee was hired for a specific undertaking 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 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 exists.

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 carry 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.

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 form in post production mixing, dubbing, overdubbing, audio-video processing, sequence alteration and modification of every nature of all 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.

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 are likewise derived from the shows it produces.

The workers — who were cameramen, light men, gaffers, lighting directors, audio men, sound engineers, system engineers, VTR men, 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. 64

Accordingly, the IJM database was a work pool of regular employees of ABS-CBN, and not independent contractors. The IJM talents' continuous rehiring for one show after the other qualified them for regular employment status with respect to the production of television programs.

The ruling in Del Rosario applies squarely to this case. IAETDc

Respondents here stand on identical footing as several of the petitioners in Del Rosario. Articona, San Juan, and Perez were camera operators and Tala a gaffer/lights technician all accredited and hired through the IJM system. They were part of the IJM pool of talents continuously re-hired by ABS-CBN for over five years to work on various programs it produced in the course of its business.

The CA correctly observed that badges of the employer-employee relationship between ABS-CBN and respondents were proven. 65 For one, ABS-CBN directly hired respondents through its Human Resources Department and even issued them company IDs indicating their status as employees.

ABS-CBN paid respondents' wages bimonthly and gave them payslips with its corporate name indicated in the heading as the employer. ABS-CBN registered respondents as its employees and facilitated their compliance with requirements in government agencies such as the Social Security System, the Pag-IBIG Fund, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This would not have been done if respondents were independent contractors and unless ABS-CBN truly considered them as its own employees.

ABS-CBN also had the power to discipline and dismiss respondents. It forced respondents to comply with all its rules, regulations, and orders in the performance of their work. This was evidenced by a Memorandum issued by ABS-CBN through its Cameraman Supervisor Ramil Pompa against Articona threatening him with a penalty of suspension:

Dear Tophe,

This has reference to the incident dated April 4, 2009 where you allegedly violated Article III Offenses against Company Interest and policies. Under ABS-CBN's Rules and Regulations, violations of this nature fall under Article III, Section 12. Failure to arrive within the specified call time of the program ASAP without any justifiable reason, and carry a penalty of 1 to 5 working days suspension.

Please explain within forty-eight (48) hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against you. Failure to reply within the specified period shall constitute waiver on your part to defend yourself.

Very truly yours,

(signed)[sic]66

Most importantly, ABS-CBN exercised control over respondents' means and methods of work. It controlled all of respondents' assignments and re-assignments, and could transfer them from one program to another. It also employed production supervisors and producers to monitor respondents closely and ensure the quality of their job performance, regularity of job output, and their compliance with the proper manner and method of accomplishing their work. 67

Based on the foregoing, the CA correctly held that respondents were regular employees of ABS-CBN. Its refusal to apply the Jalog ruling to classify respondents as independent contractors is likewise affirmed. It was settled in Del Rosario that the Jalog ruling was promulgated only through a minute resolution which therefore cannot establish judicial precedent.

Respondents were illegally dismissed

Having established that respondents were regular employees of ABS-CBN, it must now be determined whether or not they were illegally dismissed.

It bears stressing that no less than the Constitution mandates full protection to labor and guarantees employees' security of tenure. 68 This means that employees shall not be dismissed except for just or authorized causes provided under the Labor Code, and only after due process is properly observed. 69 Any dismissal without just or authorized cause is invalid and entitles the employee to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up until the time of actual reinstatement. 70

In this case, ABS-CBN unilaterally removed respondents from all their work assignments and denied them access to the company premises after they refused to sign the contracts offered to them. This was undeniably tantamount to their dismissal for which ABS-CBN failed to prove any just or authorized causes. SaCIDT

Consequently, respondents were illegally dismissed and are legally entitled to the reliefs of reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up until the time of actual reinstatement.

To compute the monetary claims due to respondents, the pertinent discussion in Del Rosario is instructive. In Del Rosario, the cases of Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC71 and Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC72 were cited to elaborate on the peculiar nature of a work pool arrangement for regular employees. It was explained that the nature of work of regular employees in work pool arrangements involves the reality of foreseeable work suspensions. These work suspensions are the periods in between production schedules when an employee is not hired to work on any program. This is caused by the nature of the industry and the varying production schedules of programs. Hence, during these periods of work suspension, an employee shall be treated as being "on leave of absence without pay" until the next production schedule or project. Expectedly, employers shall not be obligated to pay an employee during these periods of work suspension.

By reason of their illegal dismissal, respondents are entitled to the payment of backwages. Each respondent shall receive backwages representing the total pay he would have received from working on the production of all the programs, shows, and projects he would have been assigned to if not for his dismissal. This shall consist of the production periods of all the programs and shows that he was assigned to and worked on prior to the dismissal. However, this amount of backwages shall be subject to the appropriate deductions for the lull periods of work suspension when there was no shooting or production of any programs and projects.

The Court directs ABS-CBN to provide the LA with the necessary data to determine the production periods of all the programs which respondents would have been hired and continued to work on if not for the dismissal. The LA shall deduct the periods of work suspension between the end of one program and the start of a new one in computing the total backwages due. In the event that ABS-CBN fails to provide this data, respondents shall be entitled to backwages from the date of their illegal dismissal until their reinstatement, without any deductions.

On the claims for 13th month pay and holiday pay, ABS-CBN had the burden to prove payment of these monetary benefits. 73 However, it did not present evidence of payment thereby entitling respondents to these monetary claims in accordance with applicable law. These shall be computed in the same manner as backwages with the proper deductions for periods of work suspension when respondents were not engaged in any production.

On the claims for overtime pay, holiday premium, and night shift differential pay, respondents had the burden to prove that they actually rendered service beyond eight hours on work days, at night, and on holidays and rest days. 74 Considering that respondents failed to adduce evidence on these matters, the claim must be denied.

The claims for moral and exemplary damages are also denied for lack of merit. The claim for attorney's fees in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award for each respondent is granted since their wages were unlawfully withheld constraining them to litigate. 75

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 26, 2014 and the Resolution dated August 1, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126843 are AFFIRMED.

Respondents Christopher A. Articona, Angelo Carlo P. San Juan, Alejandrino M. Perez, and Rufino M. Tala are ORDERED to be REINSTATED in the work pool. They are entitled to payment of backwages and other benefits from the time of their dismissal to actual reinstatement, with appropriate deductions for periods when no production was being done.

This case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the backwages and monetary benefits due to each of the respondents in accordance with the discussion in this resolution. ABS-CBN Corporation is ORDERED to provide the Labor Arbiter with the data necessary for this purpose.

All amounts awarded shall earn interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this resolution until full payment. aTHCSE

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 10-97.

2.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1015-1029. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.

3.Id. at 1150-1151.

4.Id. at 696-704. Per curiam, Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III, and Commissioner Julie C. Rendoque concurring.

5.Id. at 743-745.

6.Id. at 664-679. Penned by Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap with Presiding Commissioner Leonardo L. Leonida and Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley concurring.

7.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 326-371. Penned by Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam.

8.Id. at 12.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 13-16.

11.Id. at 18-20.

12.Id. at 21-22.

13.Id. at 328.

14.Id. at 332.

15.Rollo, Vol. II, p. 1016.

16.Id. at 989-990.

17.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 37-38.

18.Id. at 39-40.

19.Id. at 41-43.

20.Id. at 44-46.

21.Id. at 275.

22.Id. at 174-189.

23.Id. at 275-276.

24.Id. at 276.

25.Id. at 265-300.

26.Id. at 190-235.

27.Id. at 236-257; 301-325.

28.Id. at 258-264.

29.Id. at 326-371.

30.Id. at 370-371.

31. NLRC CA No. 042763-05.

32. NLRC CA No. 038293-04.

33.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 372-415.

34.Id. at 416-460.

35.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 662-679.

36.Id. at 677-678.

37.Id. at 673-677.

38.Id. at 683-689.

39.Id. at 690-695.

40. NLRC Special Division created through Administrative Order No. 03-21, series of 2012, composed of Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, Commissioner Julie C. Rendoque, and Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III.

41.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 696-704.

42.Id. at 704.

43.Id. at 743-745.

44.Id. at 746-802.

45.Id. at 814-893.

46.Id. at 903-983; 984-1013.

47.Id. at 1015-1029.

48.Id. at 1028-1029.

49.Id. at 1024-1025.

50.Id. at 1025-1026.

51. 624 Phil. 562 (2010).

52.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1030-1060.

53.Id. at 1127-1148.

54.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 10-90.

55.Jalog v. NLRC and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., supra note 31.

56. OS-A-9-5-10 (NCR-OD-M-0911-006).

57.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1163-1199.

58.Id. at 1179.

59.Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418, 433 (2015).

60.Expedition Construction Corporation v. Africa, 822 Phil. 1044, 1055 (2017).

61.Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Gison, 670 Phil. 615, 627 (2011).

62. G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495, 202497, 210165, 219125, 222057, 224879, 225101 and 225874, September 8, 2020.

63. 758 Phil. 467 (2015).

64.Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, supra note 62.

65.Rollo, Vol. II, p. 1027.

66.Id. at 1028.

67.Id. at 1027-1028.

68. 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, Article XIII, Section 3.

69.Distribution & Control Products, Inc. v. Santos, 813 Phil. 423, 432 (2017).

70.Id., citing Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Casas, 759 Phil. 479, 497 (2015).

71. 348 Phil. 580, 604 (1998).

72. 344 Phil. 268, 280 (1997).

73.Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., 824 Phil. 864, 880 (2018).

74.Id.

75. LABOR CODE, Article 111.