Scribd
Upload
90 views1 page

Farley Fulache Et Al vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. 183810, 21 Jan 2010

Petitioners filed a regularization case against ABS-CBN claiming they had rendered over a year of service and should be recognized as regular employees. ABS-CBN claimed the petitioners were independent contractors. The NLRC ruled the petitioners were regular employees of ABS-CBN as the company exercised control over their work. As regular employees, the petitioners were entitled to benefits under the collective bargaining agreement. However, ABS-CBN terminated the petitioners claiming redundancy, but the NLRC ruled this termination violated labor laws and the existing CBA as ABS-CBN was still appealing the NLRC's prior ruling.

Uploaded by

Shine Dawn Infante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views1 page

Farley Fulache Et Al vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. 183810, 21 Jan 2010

Petitioners filed a regularization case against ABS-CBN claiming they had rendered over a year of service and should be recognized as regular employees. ABS-CBN claimed the petitioners were independent contractors. The NLRC ruled the petitioners were regular employees of ABS-CBN as the company exercised control over their work. As regular employees, the petitioners were entitled to benefits under the collective bargaining agreement. However, ABS-CBN terminated the petitioners claiming redundancy, but the NLRC ruled this termination violated labor laws and the existing CBA as ABS-CBN was still appealing the NLRC's prior ruling.

Uploaded by

Shine Dawn Infante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Farley Fulache et al vs. ABS-CBN, G.R.

183810, 21 Jan 2010

Facts:

Petitioners: They filed complaints for regularization, unfair labor practice and several money
claims (regularization case). They learned that they had been excluded from its coverage as
ABS-CBN considered them temporary and not regular employees, in violation of the Labor
Code. They claimed they had already rendered more than a year of service in the company and,
therefore, should have been recognized as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and
to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees. Respondent: ABS-CBN alleged
that the petitioners’ services were contracted on various dates by its Cebu station as
independent contractors/off camera talents, and they were not entitled to regularization in these
capacities.

Issue:

Whether EE relationship exists?

Ruling:

The NLRC ruled that there was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners
and ABS-CBN as the company exercised control over the petitioners in the performance of their
work; the petitioners were regular employees because they were engaged to perform activities
usually necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN's trade or business; they cannot be considered
contractual employees since they were not paid for the result of their work, but on a monthly
basis and were required to do their work in accordance with the company’s schedule. As regular
employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit and are therefore
entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract. In the course of this appeal, ABS-CBN
took matters into its own hands and terminated the petitioners’ services on the ground of
redundancy. However, ABS-CBN forgot that by claiming redundancy as authorized cause for
dismissal, it impliedly admitted that the petitioners were regular employees whose services, by
law, can only be terminated for the just and authorized causes defined under the Labor Code.
Likewise ABS-CBN forgot that it had an existing CBA with a union, which agreement must be
respected in any move affecting the security of tenure of affected employees; otherwise, it ran
the risk of committing unfair labor practice – both a criminal and an administrative offense. It
similarly forgot that an exercise of management prerogative can be valid only if it is undertaken
in good faith and with no intent to defeat or circumvent the rights of its employees under the
laws or under valid agreements. 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 appealling 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.

You might also like