Zea v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206943. January 13, 2021.]

CEZAR Z. ZEA, petitioner,vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP./MR. EUGENIO LOPEZ III, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 13, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206943 (CEZAR Z. ZEA, petitioner v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP./MR. EUGENIO LOPEZ III, respondents). — When an employer offers neither just nor authorized cause for the dismissal of its regular employee, the illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement with backwages, or if reinstatement is no longer feasible, separation pay with backwages.

This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the National Labor Relations Commission Resolutions finding that the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction over Cezar Z. Zea's (Zea) Complaint for illegal dismissal against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN).

Zea worked as a lights operator/gaffer for ABS-CBN from June 13, 1997 until August 13, 2000. He alleged that on August 10, 2010, he was offered a contract by ABS-CBN, which he refused. Subsequently, he was refused access to ABS-CBN's studio and not offered any work. Because of this, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay against ABS-CBN. 4

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Zea's complaint for want of jurisdiction. This ruling was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission. 5

In its October 15, 2012 Decision, 6 the Court of Appeals upheld the rulings of the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission.

In so ruling, the Court of Appeals held that, even though the Court of Appeals' Seventh Division had found that Zea was a regular employee in Payonan v. National Labor Relations Commission, that case had not yet attained finality. Further, Payonan declared that a camera operator, audio operator, OB-van driver, PA-van driver, VTR operator, lights operator, and camera control unit which rendered services for ABS-CBN were all regular employees without examining their peculiar circumstances. For this, the Court of Appeals found that it was not precluded from making a contrary finding based on the evidence on record. 7

Next, the Court of Appeals found that Zea was an independent contractor for ABS-CBN. It noted that Zea himself submitted a company certification stating that he had been a "talent" since 1997. Although Zea obtained the certification in 2000, before filing the labor case, the Court of Appeals found that he never protested such designation. Likewise, all of his payslips designated him as a "talent,'' mostly issued over a 15-day "talent period." The Court of Appeals also noted that Zea's take home pay varied depending on the kinds of shows he worked on and the number of hours he worked for. He was also not issued payslips when he did not render services for ABS-CBN. These, to the Court of Appeals, supported ABS-CBN's claim that Zea was not bound to exclusively work for ABS-CBN, but could offer services to other networks or production companied. 8

Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that Zea had the unique skills, talents, and expertise characteristic of an independent contractor. It likewise found that ABS-CBN also had no control over the manner by which Zea performed his job, but only as to the results. 9

Based on all of these, the Court of Appeals found that when ABS-CBN did not hire Zea's services, it was a mere non-renewal of engagement and not illegal dismissal. 10

The Court of Appeals denied Zea's Motion for Reconsideration in its April 22, 2013 Resolution. 11 Thus, Zea filed this Petition. 12

Petitioner claims that he was a regular employee of respondent ABS-CBN, working as a "lightman" since June 13, 1997. On March 11, 2002, with others, he filed before the National Labor Relations Commission a complaint for regularization and collective bargaining agreement benefits titled, "Journalie Payonan, et al. v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation.'' 13 While the complaint was pending on appeal, petitioner claims that he was told to report to ABS-CBN's Human Resources Department and asked to sign a contract or agreement. When he refused to sign, he was later unable to enter ABS-CBN premises because his access ID card no longer worked. 14

Petitioner cites the National Labor Relations Commission's rulings in "Santiago v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation," 15 where the work of program employees relative to productions was found usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN's usual business or trade. This conclusion, petitioner says, is consistent with this Court's rulings in ABS-CBN v. Marquez16 that ABS-CBN was not a mere broadcaster but also a producer of television programs; and in Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals17 that there should be a reasonable connection between the employee's particular activity and the usual trade or business of the employer. 18

On July 24, 2013, this Court issued a Resolution 19 which, among others, required respondents to comment on the Petition.

On November 4, 2013, respondents ABS-CBN and Eugenio R. Lopez filed their Comment. 20

Respondents argue that the Petition should be dismissed outright for raising questions of fact. They point out that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual issue. 21

Further, even if the Petition were to be given due course, respondents claim that the all the lower courts did not err in finding petitioner to be a "talent" or independent contractor, because respondents only had control of him with respect to the result of the work. 22

According to respondents, the company engages independent contractors such as "directors, actors, script-writers, and production and technical staff" for particular programs it produces, which it calls "talents." 23 Since 2002, it has used an Internal Job Market,·which is a "database" which provided the user with a list of accredited technical or creative manpower and/or talents who offered their services for a fee." 24 The talents engaged under it on a per-project or per-day basis based on availability of a project and its budget, and are paid on a negotiated rate. Respondents claim that the company talents are not bound to exclusively render services only for the company, but may also work for other production companies. 25

From these, respondents assert that petitioner had his services procured on a per-program basis, and was not subject to the same control over regular employees. They add that petitioner is an independent contractor because of his "skills, knowledge[,] or expertise," and was not subject to supervision or training apart from a general briefing on the requirements of the project to be executed. Being part of the Internal Job Market, respondents say, does not make him a regular employee. 26

Respondents further claim that the industry practice where talents are engaged as independent contractors should be taken into account. They add that reporting petitioner with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation gave rise only to a presumption of an employer-employee relationship, which can be easily debunked because of the lack of control respondent company has over him. 27

Finally, respondents argue that petitioner cannot rely on Payonan, which had not yet attained finality. It instead offers the Court of Appeals case of Jalog, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 28 in which respondent ABS-CBN's talents such as ''cameramen, crane operators, VTR men[,] and drivers" were held not to be its employees. It alleges that Jalog had already become final, meriting the Petition's dismissal by virtue or stare decisis. It also argues that Abad v. National Labor Relations Commission and Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporations should apply. 29

The issues to be resolved in this case are:

First, whether or not the Petition for Review raises questions of fact not reviewable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;

Second, whether or not petitioner Cezar Z. Zea was a regular employee of respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation; and

Finally, whether or not respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation illegally dismissed petitioner Cezar Z. Zea.

As a preliminary matter, respondents point out that the Petition raises unreviewable questions of fact.

Admittedly, both the existence of an employer-employee relationship 30 and the illegality of dismissal from employment 31 are factual issues. This Court's power of review over labor cases in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the correctness of the Court of Appeals' findings on the existence, or lack, of grave abuse of discretion committed by the National Labor Relations Commission. 32 In Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation:33

1. We review in this Rule 45 petition the decision of the CA on a Rule 65 petition filed by Montoya with that court. In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of·questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other·words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?34 (Emphasis in the original)

Grave abuse of discretion exists when a court or tribunal "capriciously acts or whimsically exercises judgment to be 'equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.'" 35 It exists when labor tribunals and courts fail to recognize the Grave abuse of discretion exists when a court or tribunal "capriciously acts or whimsically exercises judgment to be 'equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.'" 35 It exists when labor tribunals and courts fail to recognize the bad faith of corporations that terminate their workers' employments while those workers have pending regularization cases against them.

In Fulache v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation: 36

Lastly, it forgot that there was a standing labor arbiter's decision that, while not yet final because of its own pending appeal, cannot simply be disregarded. By implementing the dismissal action at the time the labor arbiter's ruling was under review, the company unilaterally negated the effects of the labor arbiter's ruling while at the same time appealing the same ruling to the NLRC. This unilateral move is a direct affront to the NLRC's authority and an abuse of the appeal process.

All these go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith. A close parallel we can draw to characterize this bad faith is the prohibition against forum-shopping under the Rules of Court. In forum-shopping, the Rules characterize as bad faith the act of filing similar and repetitive actions for the same cause with the intent of somehow finding a favorable ruling in one of the actions filed. ABS-CBN's action in the two cases, as described above, are of the same character, since its obvious intent was to defeat and render useless, in a roundabout way and other than through the appeal it had taken, the labor arbiter's decision in the regularization case. Forum-shopping is penalized by the dismissal of the actions involved. The penalty against ABS-CBN for its bad faith in the present case should be no less.

The errors and omissions do not belong to ABS-CBN alone. The labor arbiter himself who handled both cases did not see the totality of the company's action for what they were. He appeared to have blindly allowed what he granted the petitioners with his left hand, to be taken away with his right hand, unmindful that the company already exhibited a badge of bad faith in seeking to terminate the services of the petitioners whose regular status had just been recognized. He should have recognized the bad faith from the timing alone of ABS-CBN's conscious and purposeful moves to secure the ultimate aim of avoiding the regularization of its so-called "talents."

The NLRC, for its part, initially recognized the presence of bad faith where it originally ruled that:

While notice has been made to the employees whose positions were declared redundant, the element of good faith in abolishing the positions of the complainants appear to be wanting. In fact, it remains undisputed that herein complainants were terminated when they refused to sign an employment contract with Able Services which would make them appear as employees of the agency and not of ABS-CBN. Such act by * clearly demonstrates bad faith on the part of the respondent in carrying out the company's redundancy program. . .

On motion for reconsideration by both parties, the NLRC reiterated its "pronouncement that complainants were illegally terminated as extensively discussed in our Joint Decision dated December 15, 2004." Yet, in an inexplicable turnaround, it reconsidered its joint decision and reinstated not only the labor arbiter's decision of January 17, 2002 in the regularization case, but also his illegal dismissal decision of April 21, 2003. Thus, the NLRC joined the labor arbiter in his error that we cannot but characterize as grave abuse of discretion.

The Court cannot leave unchecked the labor tribunals' patent grave abuse of discretion that resulted, without doubt, in a grave injustice to the petitioners who were claiming regular employment status and were unceremoniously deprived of their employment soon after their regular status was recognized. Unfortunately, the CA failed to detect the labor tribunals' gross errors in the disposition of the dismissal issue. Thus, the CA itself joined the same errors the labor tribunals committed.·37 (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals all know the series of events that led to this illegal dismissal case, including the regularization case pending at the time respondent ABS-CBN terminated petitioner's employment. The Court of Appeals even specifically noted the disposition of that regularization case, but failed to recognize that affirming petitioner's dismissal rendered futile the results of the regularization case. It failed to see respondent ABS-CBN's clear and egregious bad faith in dismissing a worker with a pending regularization action. There is grave abuse of discretion here that requires correction.

This Court has already decided the nature of petitioner's employment with respondent ABS-CBN.

On September 8, 2020, this Court issued Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 38 which resolved the consolidated cases for regularization and illegal dismissal filed against respondent ABS-CBN. Among the consolidated cases was ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Payonan, docketed as G.R. Nos. 202495-97, 39 where petitioner was among those workers seeking to be regularized. In disposing of Del Rosario, this Court held in part:

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court renders the following disposition:

xxx xxx xxx

2. The petition in ABS-CBN Corporation v. Payonan, et al., (G.R. Nos. 202495-97) is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2011 and the Resolution dated June 27, 2012 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 108552-108976 are AFFIRMED.

In CA-G.R. SP Nos. 108552 to 108976, the Court of Appeals held that the workers — including petitioner were "regular employees of [respondent ABS-CBN] and accordingly entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded to all other regular employees of [respondent ABS-CBN] under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or company policy." 40 Thus, petitioner has been judicially determined to be a regular employee of respondent ABS-CBN.

Del Rosario is a final judgment with the effect of res judicata41 on this case. Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court states the doctrine and effect of res judicata:

SECTION 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgement or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

In Facura v. Court of Appeals: 42

The principle of res judicata lays down two main rules: (1) the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal; and (2) any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgement therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same. The first rule which corresponds to paragraph (b) of Section 47 above, is referred to as "bar by former judgment''; while the second rule, which is embodied in paragraph (c), is known as "conclusiveness of judgment." 43 (Citations omitted)

Res judicata through bar by former judgment requires identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. On the other hand, res judicata through conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation of facts or issues in another case between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. 44 These include matters necessarily involved and adjudicated, or necessarily implied in the final judgment, even if there were no specific findings on these matters. If it can be shown that a decision could not have been reached without deciding a particular matter, the decision settles the matter for all future actions between the parties. A judgment is an adjudication on all matters that essentially support it, and all propositions assumed or decided by the court leading to the final conclusion are considered adjudicated as well. 45

However, only matters actually and directly controverted and determined in the first judgment, and not those merely involved in it, are conclusive on the parties in any subsequent case. 46

In Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc.: 47

There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.

But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the actions is the same.

Thus, if a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue.

The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior judgement" would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies. 48 (Citations omitted)

Concededly, there is no identity of causes of action between this case and Del Rosario. Petitioner's ultimate relief in Del Rosario was to be recognized as a regular employee, while here, petitioner seeks reinstatement to his prior employment.

However, there is identity of parties. There is also an identity of issues, namely, whether petitioner is a regular employee of, or an independent contractor for, respondent ABS-CBN — an issue resolved in Del Rosario and now conclusive upon this Court.

Incidentally, Del Rosario also refutes respondent ABS-CBN's argument on the propriety of applying Jalog v. National Labor Relations Commission, 49 which this Court disposed of in a minute resolution:

ABS-CBN argues that the ruling in Jalog applies. In Jalog, the CA Former Seventh Division ruled that the cameramen and the other workers of its Engineering Department are talents and not its regular employees. This ruling was affirmed by the Court through a Minute Resolution dated October 5, 2011.

This contention does not hold water.

Essentially, the phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere literally means "stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled." This legal concept ordains that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. Simply stated, like cases ought to be decided alike.

Accordingly, "where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue."

However, the CA's decision in Jalog was affirmed by the Court through a minute resolution. The binding nature of a minute resolution and its ability to establish a lasting judicial precedent have already been settled in Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commission of Internal Revenue. There, the Court explained that a minute resolution constitutes res judicata only insofar as it involves the "same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same parties." However, it ·will not set a binding precedent "if other parties or another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is involved." Thus, the ruling in Jalog, which involves different litigants, may not be applied to the parties in the instant petition. 50 (Citations omitted)

Petitioner's status as a regular employee having been determined in Del Rosario, this Court now turns to the termination of his employment with respondent ABS-CBN.

In illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first prove their dismissal with substantial evidence. Then, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show that the dismissal was for just or authorized cause, and that due process had been observed. 51

Here, the termination of petitioner's employment with respondent ABS-CBN is uncontested. What is lacking, based on what has been presented in the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals, is any proof that respondent ABS-CBN observed substantive and procedural due process in petitioner's dismissal. All it relied on was its position that petitioner was an independent contractor, and thus, his services may be dispensed with at any time. In doing so, respondent ABS-CBN illegally dismissed petitioner.

When there is neither just nor authorized cause for dismissal, the illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement with backwages, or separation pay with backwages should reinstatement be no longer feasible. In Paragele v. GMA Network, Inc.:·52

As regular employees, petitioners enjoy the right to security of tenure. Thus, they may only be terminated for just or authorized cause, and after due notice and hearing. The burden to prove that a dismissal was anchored on a just or authorized cause rests on the employer. The employer's failure to discharge this burden leads to no other conclusion than that a dismissal was illegal.

It was thus, incumbent upon GMA to ensure that petitioners' dismissals were made in keeping with the requirements of substantive and procedural due process. GMA, however, miserably·failed to allege in its Comment, much less prove, that petitioners' dismissals were impelled by any of the just or authorized causes recognized in Articles 297, 298, 299 or 279(a) of the Labor Code.

As illegally dismissed employees, petitioners are entitled to reinstatement to their positions with full backwages computed from the time of dismissal up to the time of actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer feasible, petitioners should be given separation pay in addition to full backwages.

Further, petitioners are entitled to the payment of attorney's fees as they were forced to litigate. "It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is legally and morally justifiable."

Finally, petitioners are entitled to interest at the legal rate at the rate (sic) of 6% per annum until the monetary awards due to them are fully paid, pursuant to Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 53 (Citations omitted)

Petitioner is also entitled to attorney's fees. Not only was he forced to litigate, but the circumstances of his employment and subsequent dismissal were the direct result of respondent ABS-CBN's bad faith:

Finally, all illegally dismissed workers from these cases should be entitled to an award of attorney's fees. Among the instances when a dismissed worker is entitled to attorney's fees is when ''the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or the plaintiff incurred expenses to protect his interest[.]"

Here, it was ABS-CBN's repeated acts of refusing to recognize its regular employees that forced the workers to litigate for their rights. Some of them even sought redress for a second time when they were terminated from employment while their regularization cases were pending. Moreover, as this Court has already noted in Fulache, ABS-CBN exhibited bad faith in attempting to defeat the outcome of the pending regularization cases by dismissing its employees in the interim. 54 (Citation omitted)

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The October 15, 2012 Decision and April 22, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124020 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. This case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of backwages and other monetary awards due to petitioner Cezar Z. Zea.

The total judgment award shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment. Furthermore, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is ordered to pay attorney's fees at 10% of the total judgment award and costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 18-51. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2.Id. at 1230-1238. The October 15, 2012 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Edwin D. Sorongon of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3.Id. at 1273-1274. The April 2, 2013 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Edwin D. Sorongon of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

4.Id. at 1231.

5.Id. at 1232.

6.Id. at 1230-1238. The October 15, 2012 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Edwin D. Sorongon of the Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

7.Id. at 1234.

8.Id. at 1234-1235.

9.Id. at 1235-1236.

10.Id. at 1237.

11.Id. at 1273-1274.

12.Id. at 9-40.

13. Docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-03-01550-2002.

14.Id. at 19-21.

15. Docketed as NLRC-NCR Case Nos. 00-11-10299-02, 00-01-00639-03, 00-01-00386-03, 00-02-01702-03, 00-01-01745-03, 00-02-01703-03 and NLRC-LAC No. 039781-04.

16. G.R. No. 167638, June 22, 2005.

17. 551 Phil. 725 (2007) [Per J. Acting C.J. Quisumbing, Second Division].

18.Rollo, pp. 27-29.

19.Id. at 1280.

20.Id. at 1293-1337.

21.Id. at 1307.

22.Id. at 1311.

23.Id. at 1314.

24.Id. at 1315.

25.Id.

26.Id. at 1311.

27.Id. at 1317.

28. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 110334.

29.Id. at 1322-1335 citing 349 Phil. 1014 (1998) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division] and 475 Phil. 539 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].

30.Television and Production Exponents, Inc. v. Servaña, 566 Phil. 564-578 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

31.Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc., 741 Phil. 171 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], Cañedo, v. Kampilan Security and Detective Agency, Inc., 715 Phil. 625 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

32.Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna, 700 Phil. 1 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 749 Phil. 388 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; E. Ganzon, Inc. v. Ando, Jr., 806 Phil. 58 (2017) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division]; Almagro v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 204803, September 12, 2018, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64594> [PerJ. Jardeleza, First Division].

33. 613 Phil. 696 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

34.Id. at 706-707.

35.Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc., 809 Phil. 106, 120 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, 421 Phil. 864, 870 (2001) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].

36. 624 Phil. 562 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

37.Id. at 583-585.

38. G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495-97, 210165, 219125, 222057, 224879, 225101, 225874, September 8, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66570> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

39.Id. at 11.

40.Id. at 6.

41.See Rodriguez v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R No. 178501, January 11, 2016 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, First Division].

42. 658 Phil. 554 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

43.Id. at 586.

44.Smith Bell and Company (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 247 Phil. 472 (1991) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].

45.Lopez v. Reyes, 166 Phil. 641 (1977) [Per J. Antonio, Second Division].

46.Nabus v. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil. 768 (1991) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].

47. 665 Phil. 198 (2011) [Per J. Perez, Third Division].

48.Id. at 205-206.

49. G.R. No. 198065, October 5, 2011 Minute Resolution.

50.Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R Nos. 202481, 202495-97, 210165, 219125, 222057, 224879, 225101, 225874, September 8, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph//thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66570> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

51.Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

52. G.R. No. 235315, July 13, 2020, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/14782/> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

53.Id. at 24-25.

54. J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. Nos. 202481, 202495-97, 210165, 219125, 222057, 224879, 225101, 225874, September 8, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66570> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].