GMA Network, Inc. v.

Pabriga pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent
November 27, 2013 | LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. | G.R. No. 176419 any other circumstances vitiating his consent;
Fixed-term employees 2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
PETITIONERS: GMA NETWORK, INC. dominance exercised by the former or the latter.
RESPONDENTS: CARLOS P. PABRIGA, GEOFFREY F. ARIAS, KIRBY
N. CAMPO, ARNOLD L. LAGAHIT, and ARMANDO A. CATUBIG

SUMMARY: Private respondents were engaged by GMA to perform duties

in the Technical Operations Center and Maintenance staff and act as FACTS:
Cameramen and Transmitter/VTR men. Due to the miserable working 1. Due to the miserable working conditions private respondents were
conditions private respondents were forced to file a complaint against forced to file a complaint against petitioner before the National Labor
petitioner before the NLRC assailing their respective employment Relations Commission Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII Cebu City
circumstances. Private respondents were summoned to the office of assailing their respective employment circumstances.
GMA’s Area Manager, Mrs. Susan Aliño, and they were made to explain 2. Private respondents were engaged by GMA to perform duties in the
why they filed the complaint. The next day, private respondents were Technical Operations Center and Maintenance staff and act as
barred from entering and reporting for work without any notice stating the Cameramen and Transmitter/VTR men.
reasons therefor. 3. Petitioner GMA received a notice of hearing of the complaint. The
following day, GMA’s Engineering Manager, Roy Villacastin,
ISSUE: Whether or not the requisites of fixed term employment are confronted the private respondents about the said complaint.
met. NO 4. Private respondents were summoned to the office of GMA’s Area
Manager, Mrs. Susan Aliño, and they were made to explain why they
The Court find it unjustifiable to allow petitioner to hire and rehire workers filed the complaint. The next day, private respondents were barred
on fixed terms, ad infinitum, depending upon its needs, never attaining from entering and reporting for work without any notice stating the
regular employment status. The respondents were repeatedly rehired in reasons therefor.
several fixed term contracts from 1996 to 1999. To prove the alleged 5. Private respondents, through their counsel, wrote a letter to Mrs.
contracts, petitioner presented cash disbursement vouchers signed by Susan Aliño requesting that they be recalled back to work but it was
respondents, stating that they were merely hired as pinch-hitters. It is ignored.
apparent that respondents were in no position to refuse to sign these 6. Private respondents filed an amended complaint raising the following
vouchers, as such refusal would entail not getting paid for their services. additional issues: 1) Unfair Labor Practice; 2) Illegal dismissal; and
Plainly, respondents as "pinch-hitters" cannot be in equal footing as 3)Damages and Attorney’s fees.
petitioner corporation in the negotiation of their employment contract. 7. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint of respondents for illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice, but held petitioner liable for 13th
The Court affirms the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that month pay.
respondents are regular employees of petitioner. As regular employees, 8. The NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and held that
they are entitled to security of tenure and therefore their services may be all complainants are regular employees with respect to the particular
terminated only for just or authorized causes. Since petitioner failed to activity to which they were assigned, until it ceased to exist. As such,
prove any just or authorized cause for their termination, we are they are entitled to payment of separation pay computed at one (1)
constrained to affirm the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals month salary for every year of service; b) They are not entitled to
that they were illegally dismissed. overtime pay and holiday pay; and c) They are entitled to 13th month
pay, night shift differential and service incentive leave pay.
DOCTRINE: The Court laid down indications or criteria for "term 9. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
employment" namely:
*Please include small details, like color and model of car, etc.
1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper ISSUES:
 1. Whether or not the respondents are fixed-term or regular petitioner reported the completion of its projects and the
employees. REGULAR EMPLOYEES dismissal of private respondents in its finished projects to the
2. Whether or not the requisites of fixed term employment are met. nearest Public Employment Office as per Policy Instruction No.
NO 2015 of the Department of Labor and Employment [DOLE].
Jurisprudence abounds with the consistent rule that the failure
RULING: WHEREFORE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated of an employer to report to the nearest Public Employment
September 8, 2006 and the subsequent Resolution denying reconsideration Office the termination of its workers’ services everytime a
dated January 22, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 73652, are hereby AFFIRMED project or a phase thereof is completed indicates that said
with the MODIFICATION that the award of attorney's fees in the affirmed workers are not project employees.
Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby DELETED. 5. The Court of Appeals also ruled that even if it is assumed that
respondents are project employees, they would nevertheless
RATIO: have attained regular employment status because of their
*Copy paste the pertinent parts of the case continuous rehiring. A project employee may also attain the
First Issue status of a regular employee if there is a continuous rehiring of
1. Pursuant to the above-quoted Article 280 of the Labor Code, project employees after the stoppage of a project; and the
employees performing activities which are usually necessary or activities performed are usual [and] customary to the business
desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade can either be or trade of the employer.
regular, project or seasonal employees, while, as a general rule, 6. The Supreme Court ruled that a project employee or a member of a
those performing activities not usually necessary or desirable in the work pool may acquire the status of a regular employee when the
employer’s usual business or trade are casual employees. The following concur:
reason for this distinction may not be readily comprehensible to
those who have not carefully studied these provisions: only 1) There is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after
employers who constantly need the specified tasks to be performed cessation of a project
can be justifiably charged to uphold the constitutionally protected
security of tenure of the corresponding workers. 2) The tasks performed by the alleged project employee are vital,
2. In this case, respondents were assigned to duties in the necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
Technical Operations Center and Maintenance staff and act as the employer.
Cameramen and Transmitter/VTR men. These jobs and
undertakings are clearly within the regular or usual business of The circumstances set forth by law and the jurisprudence is present
the employer company and are not identifiably distinct or in this case. In fine, even if private respondents are to be considered
separate from the other undertakings of the company. There is as project employees, they attained regular employment status, just
no denying that the manning of the operations center to air the same.
commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining the 7. Anent this issue of attainment of regular status due to continuous
equipment, and acting as cameramen are not undertakings rehiring, petitioner argues that respondents were fully aware and
separate or distinct from the business of a broadcasting freely entered into agreements to undertake a particular activity for a
company. specific length of time. Petitioner apparently confuses project
3. Petitioner’s allegation that respondents were merely substitutes or employment from fixed term employment.
what they call pinch-hitters (which means that they were employed to Second Issue
take the place of regular employees of petitioner who were absent or 1. The Court laid down indications or criteria for "term employment"
on leave) does not change the fact that their jobs cannot be namely:
considered projects within the purview of the law.
4. In affirming the Decision of the NLRC, the Court of Appeals
1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily
furthermore noted that if respondents were indeed project
employees, petitioner should have reported the completion of agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or
its projects and the dismissal of respondents in its finished improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and
projects. Nowhere in the records is there any showing that absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
 2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance exercised by the former or the latter.

2. The employer has the burden of proving with clear, accurate,

consistent, and convincing evidence that the dismissal was valid. It is
therefore the employer which must satisfactorily show that it was not
in a dominant position of advantage in dealing with its prospective
employee.
3. The Court find it unjustifiable to allow petitioner to hire and rehire
workers on fixed terms, ad infinitum, depending upon its needs,
never attaining regular employment status. To recall, respondents
were repeatedly rehired in several fixed term contracts from 1996 to
1999. To prove the alleged contracts, petitioner presented cash
disbursement vouchers signed by respondents, stating that they
were merely hired as pinch-hitters. It is apparent that respondents
were in no position to refuse to sign these vouchers, as such refusal
would entail not getting paid for their services. Plainly, respondents
as "pinch-hitters" cannot be considered to be in equal footing as
petitioner corporation in the negotiation of their employment contract.
4. In sum, we affirm the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals
that respondents are regular employees of petitioner. As regular
employees, they are entitled to security of tenure and therefore their
services may be terminated only for just or authorized causes. Since
petitioner failed to prove any just or authorized cause for their
termination, we are constrained to affirm the findings of the NLRC
and the Court of Appeals that they were illegally dismissed.