THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217496. June 30, 2021.]
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. TAUCER TYCHE V. BENZONAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217496 (ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner, v. TAUCER TYCHE V. BENZONAN, respondent). — The Court resolves to NOTE respondent's email ([email protected]) forwarded by Judiciary Public Assistance Section, Office of the Chief Justice, requesting for the speedy disposition of the instant case, endorsed by the Office of the Clerk of Court, Second Division, through an email dated November 10, 2020.
A dismissed employee is not precluded from filing a separate complaint for illegal dismissal during the pendency of their regularization complaint. In doing so, forum shopping is not committed because these cases are founded on different causes of action where an employee asserts different rights and seeks distinct reliefs.
This Court resolves the Petition for Review 1 filed by ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN), assailing the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission Decision 4 reversing the Labor Arbiter's dismissal of an illegal dismissal case for forum shopping. 5
ABS-CBN hired Taucer Tyche V. Benzonan (Benzonan) as a camera operator in June 2002. 6 He, along with Jose D. Zaballa (Zaballa), Fischerbob B. Casaje (Casaje), and Jonathan B. Reodique (Reodique), was accredited in ABS-CBN's Internal Job Market, its pool of workers for specific projects. Benzonan and his co-workers were repeatedly hired for several years. 7
On July 9, 2010, Benzonan, Zaballa, Casaje, Reodique, and Sixto Romero (Romero) filed complaints against ABS-CBN for regularization and nonpayment of the following benefits: overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, 13th month pay, and night shift differential; moral and exemplary damages; and attorney's fees. 8 These complaints were later consolidated and docketed as NLRC NCR-00-07-09454-10 and NLRC NCR-00-08-10773-10 (regularization cases). 9
While the regularization cases were pending, ABS-CBN terminated the complainants' employment. Benzonan was not allowed to enter the company's premises and work on the shows previously assigned to him. 10
Zaballa and Casaje amended their regularization complaints to include illegal dismissal as a cause of action. 11 Benzonan did not amend his regularization complaint, 12 while Reodique and Romero filed an Affidavit of Withdrawal and Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim. Thus, Reodique's and Romero's complaints were dismissed. 13
Benzonan, Zaballa, and Casaje filed a consolidated Position Paper. 14 They prayed to be recognized as regular employees of ABS-CBN, to have their dismissal be declared illegal, and to have ABS-CBN be found guilty of unfair labor practice. They also prayed for reinstatement, payment of benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 15
On July 3, 2012, Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on rendered a Decision 16 in favor of the remaining complainants. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent ABS-CBN CORPORATION, is hereby ordered, as follows:
1] To immediately REINSTATE complainants Fischerbob Casaje and Jose Zabala III to their previous positions without loss of seniority rights;
2] To pay the above-named complainants backwages computed from the time of termination up to the finality of the Decision;
3] To pay complainant Taucer Tyche Benzonan, Fischerbob Casaje and Jose Zaballa III, 13th month pay and holiday pay, computed three [3] years back from the time of the filing of this complaint.
4] Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.
The computation of the total award is appended hereof as Annex "A" to form part of this Decision.
The rest of the money claims are denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 17 (Emphasis supplied)
ABS-CBN filed a partial appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission, but to no avail. 18 Thus, it filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. 19 After its dismissal, ABS-CBN filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court. 20 The regularization cases were consolidated with seven other petitions, which have recently been resolved in Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. 21 In Del Rosario, this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' findings that Benzonan, Casaje, and Zaballa were regular employees of ABS-CBN. 22
While the regularization cases were pending, on July 11, 2012, Benzonan filed a separate complaint for illegal dismissal (illegal dismissal case). 23 He claimed that he was illegally dismissed for joining a union and refusing to sign a prejudicial employment contract. 24 He alleged that ABS-CBN failed to comply with the requirements of notice and hearing before dismissing him from work. 25 He also prayed for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. 26
ABS-CBN moved to dismiss the illegal dismissal case for res judicata and forum shopping, citing the Labor Arbiter's Decision in the regularization cases. 27
On June 19, 2013, Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco (Executive Labor Arbiter Jambaro-Franco) rendered a Decision 28 dismissing the illegal dismissal case. The dispositive portion of her Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for violation of the rule against forum shopping.
SO ORDERED. 29 (Emphasis in the original)
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission issued a November 29, 2013 Resolution 30 setting aside Executive Labor Arbiter Jambaro-Franco's ruling and ordering the remand of the case. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, the APPEAL is granted. The Decision dismissing the complaint is hereby vacated and a new one is rendered ordering the remand of the records of this case to the labor arbiter a quo to resolve the issue of illegal dismissal.
SO ORDERED. 31 (Emphasis in the original)
In a February 28, 2014 Resolution, 32 the National Labor Relations Commission denied ABS-CBN's Motion for Reconsideration.
ABS-CBN filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, asserting that the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in remanding the case. 33
In its October 17, 2014 Decision, 34 the Court of Appeals dismissed ABS-CBN's Petition for Certiorari. It likewise denied ABS-CBN's Motion for Reconsideration in its February 24, 2015 Resolution. 35
Hence, ABS-CBN filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari36 against Benzonan.
In a July 22, 2015 Resolution, 37 this Court required respondent to comment on the Petition. On October 7, 2015, respondent filed his Comment, 38 which this Court noted on December 9, 2015. 39
On February 8, 2017, this Court required petitioner to file its reply. 40 After moving to extend the filing period, petitioner filed its Reply 41 on March 27, 2017. This Court granted the extension and noted the Reply in the July 3, 2017 Resolution. 42
Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss the case for deliberate forum shopping. It posits that there is identity of reliefs in the regularization and illegal dismissal cases since respondent prayed for the declaration of his illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and backwages in their consolidated Position Paper in the verified regularization complaint. 43 Supposedly, the verification of the Position Paper effectively amended his complaint, estopping him from filing the illegal dismissal case. 44
In addition, petitioner contends that there is similarity of issues because the regularization cases involve determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, which is material to the illegal dismissal case. 45 Petitioner emphasizes that the National Labor Relations Commissions exclusion of respondent from its reinstatement order effectively denied his prayer for illegal dismissal. Thus, a ruling on any of the two complaints will constitute res judicata on the other. 46
Respondent denies that he committed forum shopping because his cause of action for illegal dismissal did not exist when he filed his regularization complaint. It supposedly only arose on August 26, 2010, when he was dismissed from employment. Since it was only his co-complainants Zabala and Casaje who amended their complaints, he says he is not estopped from filing a separate case for illegal dismissal. 47
Respondent argues that he was not included in the reinstatement order because Rule III, Section 1 and Rule V, Section 11 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provide that only those causes of action stated in the complaint may be taken in the pleadings and awarded to the parties. Only the finding that he was a regular employee of petitioner, he says, is binding as to him. 48
Respondent claims that he was illegally dismissed and his security of tenure was violated without due process. Thus, he says he is entitled to moral and exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00 and 10% of the total award as attorney's fees, and costs of litigation. 49
The sole issue for resolution is whether or not there is forum shopping in respondent Taucer Tyche V. Benzonan's subsequent filing of the illegal dismissal case during the pendency of his regularization complaint.
We rule in the negative.
In Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 50 which included the regularization complaint of respondent, 51 this Court settled that there is no forum shopping in the subsequent filing of an illegal dismissal complaint while a regularization complaint is pending. In such a case, there is no identity of causes of action and reliefs sought:
Forum shopping exists when one party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively. The remedies stem from the same transactions, are founded on identical facts and circumstances, and raise substantially similar issues, which are either pending in, or have been resolved adversely by another court. Through forum shopping, unscrupulous litigants trifle with court processes by taking advantage of a variety of competent tribunals, repeatedly trying their luck in several different fora until they obtain a favorable result. Because of this, forum shopping is condemned, as it unnecessarily burdens the courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary, and permits a mockery of the judicial processes. Absent safeguards against forum shopping, two competent tribunals may render contradictory decisions, thereby disrupting the efficient administration of justice.
Here, although it is true that the parties in the regularization and the illegal dismissal cases are identical, the reliefs sought and the causes of action are different. There is no identity of causes of action between the first set of cases and the second set of cases.
The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence would support both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would support both actions, then they are considered the same; a judgment in the first case would be a bar to the subsequent action. This is absent here. The facts or the pieces of evidence that would determine whether the workers were illegally dismissed are not the same as those that would support their clamor for regularization.
Besides, it must be remembered that the circumstances obtaining at the time the workers filed the regularization cases were different from when they subsequently filed the illegal dismissal cases. Before their illegal dismissal, the workers were simply clamoring for their recognition as regular employees, and their right to receive benefits concomitant with regular employment. However, during the pendency of the regularization cases, the workers were summarily terminated from their employment. This supervening event gave rise to a cause of action for illegal dismissal, distinct from that in the regularization case. This time, the workers were not only praying for regularization, but also for reinstatement by questioning the legality of their dismissal. The issue turned into whether or not ABS-CBN had just or authorized cause to terminate their employment. Clearly, it was ABS-CBN's action of dismissing the workers that gave rise to the illegal dismissal cases. And it is absurd for it to now ask the Court to fault the workers for questioning ABS-CBN's actions, which were done while the regularization cases were pending. The Court cannot allow this.
Simply stated, in a regularization case, the question is whether the employees are entitled to the benefits enjoyed by regular employees even as they are treated as talents by ABS-CBN. On the other hand, in the illegal dismissal case, the workers likewise need to prove the existence of employer-employee relationship, but ABS-CBN must likewise prove the validity of the termination of the employment. Clearly, the evidence that will be submitted in the regularization case will be different from that in the illegal dismissal case. 52 (Citations omitted)
Petitioner contends that there is forum shopping because respondent's act of verifying the consolidated Position Paper, which includes illegal dismissal as a cause of action, supposedly amended his regularization complaints. 53 His non-inclusion in the reinstatement order supposedly means that his claim of illegal dismissal has been impliedly denied. 54
We are not convinced.
Rule V, Section 7 of the 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the applicable rule at the time of filing the Position Paper, states that only causes of action pleaded in a complaint or an amended complaint shall be covered in it:
SECTION 7. SUBMISSION OF POSITION PAPER AND REPLY. — a) Subject to Sections 4 and 5 of this Rule, the Labor Arbiter shall direct the parties to submit simultaneously their verified position papers with supporting documents and affidavits, if any, within an inextendible period of ten (10) calendar days from the date of termination of the mandatory, conciliation and mediation conference.
b) The position papers of the parties shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint or amended complaint, excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and accompanied by all supporting documents, including the affidavits of witnesses, which shall take the place of their direct testimony.
c) A reply may be filed by any party within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the position paper of the adverse party.
d) In their position papers and replies, the parties shall not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts and any cause or causes of action not referred to or included in the original or amended complaint or petition. (Emphasis supplied)
In Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Demecillo, 55 several employees filed complaints for salary differentials for their separation pay awarded for the company's retrenchment program. All complainants, except for Antonio Montecillo, Jr., amended their original complaints and included the charge for illegal dismissal. This Court held that labor tribunals do not have jurisdiction to grant a relief that is prayed for in the position paper but not included in the complaint:
Quite the opposite, in this case, respondent Montecillo was a party, only in the suit for non-payment of benefits. He did not amend his complaint to reflect a charge of illegal dismissal against petitioner. It was not surprising, therefore, that Montecillo was not among those who were awarded backwages by the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in its May 24, 1999 Decision.
By express provision of Section 3, par. (2) Rule V of The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC on the proceedings before the labor arbiter, verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint save those that may have been amicably settled. They shall be accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the latter's direct testimony. Thereafter, the parties shall not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents.
Since respondent Montecillo failed to allege illegal dismissal in his complaint, he cannot subsequently incorporate such claim in his position paper. It follows that the Court of Appeals never acquired jurisdiction to rule on the validity of his termination. Thus, we find the appellate court's award of backwages in Montecillo's favor without legal basis. 56 (Citation omitted)
Here, only Zaballa and Casaje amended their regularization complaints and included illegal dismissal as a cause of action. 57 While respondent was also dismissed during the pendency of the regularization cases, he did not amend his complaint. This means the Labor Arbiter cannot include respondent in its reinstatement order because he only prayed for regularization and other monetary claims:
In his Comment/Opposition to Petition for Certiorari, private respondent Benzonan counters that: he did not violate the rule against forum shopping because he had no pending case for illegal dismissal before he filed another complaint for said cause of action; the original verified complaint in NLRC NRC-07-09454-10 was amended by Zaballa and Casaje to include illegal dismissal as additional cause of action, however, since [Benzonan] failed to amend said complaint, the only causes of action in the original complaint, insofar as he is concerned, are for regularization and money claims; under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the position papers of the parties shall cover only those claims and causes of action stated in the complaint or amended complaint; there was no violation of Section 1(b) Rule III of the NLRC Rules of Procedure because the cause of action for illegal dismissal arose only after the complaints in NLRC NCR-07-09454-10 had filed the complaint for regularization and money claims; while the issue of illegal dismissal was tack[l]ed by the Labor Arbiter in NLRC NRC-07-09454-10, the same applies only to Zaballa and Casaje who amended their complaint and said issue was not resolved insofar as [Benzonan] is concerned; in fact the Labor Arbiter did not order his reinstatement due to his failure to amend the original complaint which did not include illegal dismissal as a cause of action; and having been declared a regular employee, he enjoys security of tenure and his termination by petitioner ABS-CBN without just cause entitles him to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. 58 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the Court of Appeals aptly observed that the filing of a consolidated Position Paper did not result in the implied amendment of respondent's regularization complaint:
Indeed, when said complainants filed their position paper, they discussed the issue of illegal dismissal, together with the other causes of action, and prayed for their reinstatement and payment of backwages. From their position paper, it would appear that private respondent Benzonan was one of the complainants who raised the issue of illegal dismissal and prayed for his reinstatement. However, a better understanding of the pleading shows that such is not the case. The reason why private respondent Benzonan appears to have raised the issue of illegal dismissal is the filing of a single position paper by the said complainants who were represented by only one counsel. Private respondent Benzonan had no separate position paper that did not tackle the issue of illegal dismissal. This does not mean, however, that he is bound by the discussion on the issue of illegal dismissal and his co-complainants' prayer for reinstatement in their position paper. This was duly noted by Labor Arbiter Libo-on when, in the dispositive of the decision in NLRC NCR-07-09454-10, he refused to order the reinstatement of private respondent Benzonan and payment of his backwages. 59
Nonetheless, respondent's failure to amend his regularization complaint does not prejudice him. It is settled that there is no forum shopping even if two separate actions based on the same contract could have been joined in the same action but were pursued in separate administrative agencies. 60 Even employees who had previously executed a compromise agreement in an illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice case are not precluded from filing a complaint for monetary benefits under labor standards law. 61 Thus, respondent is not estopped from filing a separate case for illegal dismissal.
Finally, we take judicial notice 62 of the Court of Appeals' findings in CA-G.R. SP No. 131576 as to the character of respondent's employment:
Both labor tribunals found substantial evidence to prove that the circumstances of private respondents' work arrangement with ABS-CBN satisfies the four-fold test. At this juncture, it is well to recall that findings of fact of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality, especially when it coincides with the findings of the labor arbiter.
Furthermore, even this Court's re-evaluation of allegations and evidence on record, when tested against the four-fold test, renders the same finding.
First, it is undisputed that private respondents were directly hired by ABS-CBN. It is of no moment that the latter hired the former as "talents." It has been held that workers whose selection and engagement required no peculiar or unique skill, talent or celebrity status, unlike actors or actresses or radio specialists, cannot be considered "talents." By the nature of private respondents' assigned tasks, they are clearly regular employees of ABS-CBN.
Second, private respondents were paid wages in the guise of the so-called "talent fees." Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent fees and the rate thereof was determined solely by ABS-CBN, as supposedly shown by a Memorandum dated 6 April 2006 Re: Payroll Adjustments, which petitioner notably omitted to include as attachment to their petition. It has been held that this circumstance negates independent contractual relationship. Tellingly, ABS-CBN deducted taxes and contributions from private respondents' so-called "talent fees" and paid them to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) and Pag-IBIG Fund, with whom private respondents were declared as ABS-CBN's employees. Petitioner also admitted in paragraph 36 of its petition that it granted Social Security System (SSS) benefits to private respondents.
Third, petitioner could always discharge private respondents should it find their work unsatisfactory, and private respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner for continued work. This Court likewise gives credence to private respondents' narration that the Company stopped giving them work when they refused to sign a contract where their claim for regularization would be waived.
Fourth, the nature of functions performed by private respondents necessarily prompts the exercise of control and supervision by petitioner through its supervisors. Lightmen and cameramen always take instructions from directors or production supervisors on where to position or angle their equipment. Private respondents were also required to attend seminars and trainings to ensure that they performed well in their job assignments. It is also well to note that by providing private respondents with all the equipment necessary in the performance of their duties, ABS-CBN exercises control over the means used by private respondents in carrying out their jobs.
On this score, it likewise bears stressing that the private respondents' lack of tools that are necessary to perform their duties significantly belies petitioner's claim that they are independent contractors.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. Corollarily, We hold that private respondents' status of employment is regular employment. Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:
"ART. 280. REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists."
In this case, this Court is convinced that the functions performed by private respondents are necessary and desirable to the business of ABS-CBN, which brings them within the definition of regular employees. While it may be true that broadcasting is the primary purpose of ABS-CBN, the Company also continually engages in the business of production, which is among its secondary purposes in its Articles of Incorporation. Indubitable, private respondents' job assignments are necessary in the production aspect of the Company's business. In any case, considering that private respondents worked for ABS-CBN for more than one (1) year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for their performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. 63 (Citations omitted)
Executive Labor Arbiter Jambaro-Franco summarily dismissed the illegal dismissal case before the parties were given the chance to submit their respective position papers and evidence. 64 Since respondent has been established to be a regular employee of petitioner in Del Rosario, the pivotal issue for determination in his illegal dismissal case is whether he was dismissed from employment for just or authorized cause with due process. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the remand of the case.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The October 17, 2014 Decision and February 24, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 135340 are AFFIRMED. The illegal dismissal case filed by respondent Taucer Tyche V. Benzonan is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter to resolve the issue of illegal dismissal.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2833)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-48.
2.Id. at 634-642. The October 17, 2014 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 135340 was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 658-659. The February 24, 2015 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4.Id. at 492-498. The November 29, 2013 Decision was penned by Commissioner Mercedes Posada-Lacap and concurred in by Commissioners Grace Maniquiz-Tan and Dolores Peralta-Beley of the Fifth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission.
5.Id. at 449-462. The June 19, 2013 Decision was issued by Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco.
6.Id. at 635.
7.Id. at 251-253.
8.Id. at 238, 635, 662.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 663.
11.Id. at 239, 635.
12.Id. at 635.
13.Id. at 238-239.
14.Id. at 120-140.
15.Id. at 138.
16.Id. at 238-255.
17.Id. at 254-255.
18.Id. at 22.
19.Id. at 666.
20. Docketed as G.R. No. 225874.
21. G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495, 202497, 210165, 219125, 222057, 224879, 225101, and 225874, September 8, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66570> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
22.Id.
23.Rollo, pp. 311-314. Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 07-10518-12.
24.Id. at 473-474.
25.Id. at 673.
26.Id. at 311.
27.Id. at 636.
28.Id. at 449-462.
29.Id. at 462.
30.Id. at 492-498.
31.Id. at 498-499.
32.Id. at 509-511.
33.Id. at 513-538.
34.Id. at 634-642.
35.Id. at 658-659.
36.Id. at 15-43.
37.Id. at 661.
38.Id. at 662-677.
39.Id. at 679.
40.Id. at 680.
41.Id. at 681-702.
42.Id. at 704.
43.Id. at 33-34.
44.Id. at 686.
45.Id. at 34, 686-687.
46.Id. at 34.
47.Id. at 669.
48.Id. at 667-671.
49.Id. at 671-675.
50. G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495, 202497, 210165, 219125, 222057, 224879, 225101, 225874, September 8, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66570> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
51.ABS-CBN Corporation v. Zaballa III, et al., G.R. No. 225874 was consolidated with seven other petitions and resolved in Del Rosario.
52. G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495, 202497, 210165, 219125, 222057, 224879, 225101, 225874, September 8, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66570> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
53.Rollo, p. 686.
54.Id. at 28.
55. 597 Phil. 621 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
56.Id. at 632-633.
57.Rollo, p. 667.
58.Id. at 637-638.
59.Id. at 638-639.
60.Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils), Inc. v. Social Security Commission, 582 Phil. 686 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].
61.Dela Rosa Liner, Inc. v. Borela, 765 Phil. 251 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
62. This Court can take judicial notice of records of judgment in another court involving the same parties. The parties made reference to the regularization cases in their pleadings where the issue of regularity of respondent's employment was resolved. (See Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, 757 Phil. 377 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second Division] citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 428 (1997) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].
63.ABS-CBN Corporation v. Jose Zaballa III, Taucer Tyche Benzonan, Fischerbob Casaje and National Labor Relations Commission, January 12, 2016 Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131576.
64.Rollo, p. 498.