VICTORIES AND DEFEAT IN 2007

Sunday, October 21, 2007

At the beginning of 2007, I had set out some goals to achieve mostly in the realm of business and a few concerning  my political career. I must say I had some fears and apprehension especially since the year of the fire pig was about to begin. Being an earth pig did not guarantee that things would go smoothly  for me even in the year of the pig especially since the forecast had stated that  the year of the fire pig will be marked by upheavals and overthrows of government.

It is the year of karma, time to collect for those who had sacrificed so much in the past 12 years and payback time for  those who had done nothing but inflict pain and hardships to his fellow man. I am no martyr nor a masochist but i have had to endure more pain and sacrifice for so long now and always wondered when all of this would end. I thought maybe this year would provide me the much-needed respite i need, the break i had been waiting for. 

Come March, I had to take a break from my radio program because of a provision in our election laws which prohibits media personalities from continuing with their program if they run for any position. This supposedly levels the playing field since to continue broadcasting will give them undue advantage among other candidates because of their exposure. I was not successful in my bid however.  It was a major debacle that came halfway in the year that was unfolding and  I was afraid that this would characterize the rest of the year. 

All of a sudden, news arrived that my case against ABC 5 which I had been fighting for  in the last 7 years had finally been resolved by the Supreme Court.  I won.   The Supreme Court gave merit to my case and came out with a landmark decision to my favor.  ABC5 is to reinstate me to my former position without lost to seniority and pay me more than 3 million pesos in damages and backwages.

Looking at the big picture, now I know why I lost the  elections. Because God had other plans for me. 

Sometimes we wish for things but God does not grant them.  Its not because he does not want to grant them nor because we are not worthy of them but because God knows that it will not be good for us.  And this is probably the biggest lesson I have ever learned from this whole episode which has spanned 12 years. 

Everything has a reason, and it happens at  the right season. With God all things are possible and it happens according to His time for only He holds the Master plan.  God is alive and He is great. Alleluia!

 I am reprinting here  the Supreme Court decision here along with some newspaper clippings for those who find themselves in similar situations. Borrowing from the words of Atty. Jose Sison, "Kapag may katwiran, Ipaglaban  mo!

 

 

---

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 164652, June 08, 2007]

THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY, JOSE JAVIER AND EDWARD TAN, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition seeks to reverse and set aside both the Decision^[1] dated January 30, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63125 and its Resolution^[2] dated June 23, 2004 denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals had overturned the Resolution^[3] dated August 30, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruling that petitioner was illegally dismissed.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On October 2, 1995, under Talent Contract No. NT95-1805,^[4] private respondent Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo as a newscaster and co-anchor for Balitang-Balita, an early evening news program.  The contract was for a period of three months.  It was renewed under Talent Contracts Nos. NT95-1915, NT96-3002, NT98-4984 and NT99-5649.^[5]  In addition, petitioner’s services were engaged for the program “Live on Five.”  On September 30, 1999, after four years of repeated renewals, petitioner’s talent contract expired.  Two weeks after the expiration of the last contract, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Javier, Vice President for News and Public Affairs of ABC,    informing the latter that she was still interested in renewing her contract subject to a salary increase.  Thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for work.  On November 5, 1999, she wrote Mr. Javier another letter,^[6] which we quote verbatim:

x x x x

Dear Mr. Javier:

On October 20, 1999, I wrote you a letter in answer to your query by way of a marginal note “what terms and conditions” in response to my first letter dated October 13, 1999. To date, or for more than fifteen (15) days since then, I have not received any formal written reply. xxx

In view hereof, should I not receive any formal response from you until Monday, November 8, 1999, I will deem it as a constructive dismissal of my services.

x x x x

A month later, petitioner sent a demand letter^[7] to ABC, demanding:  (a) reinstatement to her former position; (b) payment of unpaid wages for services rendered from September 1 to October 20, 1999 and full backwages; (c) payment of 13^th month pay, vacation/sick/service incentive leaves and other monetary benefits due to a regular employee starting March 31, 1996.  ABC replied that a check covering petitioner’s talent fees for September 16 to October 20, 1999 had been processed and prepared, but that the other claims of petitioner had no basis in fact or in law.

On December 20, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint^[8] against ABC, Mr. Javier and Mr. Edward Tan, for illegal constructive dismissal, nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay, separation pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, vacation/sick leaves and 13^th month pay in NLRC-NCR Case No. 30-12-00985-99.  She likewise demanded payment for moral, exemplary and actual damages, as well as for attorney’s fees.

The parties agreed to submit the case for resolution after settlement failed during the mandatory conference/conciliation.  On March 29, 2000, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint.^[9]

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in a Resolution dated August 30, 2000.  The NLRC held that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and ABC; that the subject talent contract was void; that the petitioner was a regular employee illegally dismissed; and that she was entitled to reinstatement and backwages or separation pay, aside from 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.  It held as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Arbiter    dated 29 March 2000 is hereby REVERSED/SET ASIDE and a NEW ONE promulgated:

1) declaring respondents to have illegally dismissed complainant from her regular work therein and thus, ordering them to reinstate her in her former position without loss of seniority right[s] and other privileges and to pay her full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, including 13th month pay based on her said latest rate of P28,000.00/mo. from the date of her illegal dismissal on 21 October 1999 up to finality hereof, or at complainant’s option, to pay her separation pay of one (1) month pay per year of service based on said latest monthly rate, reckoned from date of hire on 30 September 1995 until finality hereof;

2) to pay complainant’s accrued SILP [Service Incentive Leave Pay] of 5 days pay per year and 13^th month pay for the years 1999, 1998 and 1997 of P19,236.00 and P84,000.00, respectively and her accrued salary from 16 September 1999 to 20 October 1999 of P32,760.00 plus legal interest at 12% from date of judicial demand on 20 December 1999 until finality hereof;

3) to pay complainant moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary damages of P350,000.00 and 10% of the total of the adjudged monetary awards as attorney’s fees.

Other monetary claims of complainant are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.^[10]

After its motion for reconsideration was denied, ABC elevated the case to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.  The petition was first dismissed for failure to attach particular documents,^[11] but was reinstated on grounds of the higher interest of justice.^[12]

Thereafter, the appellate court ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, and reversed the decision of the NLRC.^[13]  The appellate court reasoned that petitioner should not be allowed to renege from the stipulations she had voluntarily and knowingly executed by invoking the security of tenure under the Labor Code.  According to the appellate court, petitioner was a fixed-term employee and not a regular employee within the ambit of Article 280^[14] of the Labor Code because her job, as anticipated and agreed upon, was only for a specified time.^[15]

Aggrieved, petitioner now comes to this Court on a petition for review, raising issues as follows:

I.

THIS HONORABLE COURT CAN REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE DECISION OF WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT[;]

II.

THE PRO-FORMA TALENT CONTRACTS, AS CORRECTLY FOUND BY THE NLRC – FIRST DIVISION, ARE “ANTI-REGULARIZATION DEVICES” WHICH MUST BE STRUCK DOWN FOR REASONS OF PUBLIC POLICY[;]

III.

BY REASON OF THE CONTINUOUS AND SUCCESSIVE RENEWALS OF THE THREE-MONTH TALENT CONTRACTS, AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP WAS CREATED AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE 280 OF THE LABOR CODE[;]

IV.

BY THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL OF HEREIN PETITIONER, AS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE, THERE WAS A DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS THUS ENTITLING HER TO THE MONEY CLAIMS AS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT[.]^[16]

The issues for our disposition are: (1) whether or not this Court can review the findings of the Court of Appeals; and (2) whether or not under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in its Decision.

On the first issue, private respondents contend that the issues raised in the instant petition are mainly factual and that there is no showing that the said issues have been resolved arbitrarily and without basis. They add that the findings of the Court of Appeals are supported by overwhelming wealth of evidence on record as well as prevailing jurisprudence on the matter.^[17]

Petitioner however contends that this Court can review the findings of the Court of Appeals, since the appellate court erred in deciding a question of substance in a way which is not in accord with law or with applicable decisions of this Court.^[18]

We agree with petitioner. Decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case — regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved — may be appealed to this Court through a petition for review.  This remedy is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case,^[19] and considering there is no congruence in the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals regarding the status of employment of petitioner, an exception to the general rule that this Court is bound by the findings of facts of the appellate court,^[20] we can review such findings.

On the second issue, private respondents contend that the Court of Appeals did not err when it upheld the validity of the talent contracts voluntarily entered into by petitioner. It further stated that prevailing jurisprudence has recognized and sustained the absence of employer-employee relationship between a talent and the media entity which engaged the talent’s services on a per talent contract basis, citing the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation.^[21]

Petitioner avers however that an employer-employee relationship was created when the private respondents started to merely renew the contracts repeatedly fifteen times or for four consecutive years.^[22]

Again, we agree with petitioner. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it held that petitioner was a fixed-term employee. Petitioner was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status.^[23]

Further, the Sonza case is not applicable. In Sonza, the television station did not instruct Sonza how to perform his job. How Sonza delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside the television station’s control. Sonza had a free hand on what to say or discuss in his shows provided he did not attack the television station or its interests. Clearly, the television station did not exercise control over the means and methods of the performance of Sonza’s work.^[24]  In the case at bar, ABC had control over the performance of petitioner’s work. Noteworthy too, is the comparatively low P28,000 monthly pay of petitioner^[25] vis the P300,000 a month salary of Sonza,^[26] that all the more bolsters the conclusion that petitioner was not in the same situation as Sonza.

The contract of employment of petitioner with ABC had the following stipulations:

x x x x

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES – TALENT agrees to devote his/her talent, time, attention and best efforts in the performance of his/her duties and responsibilities as Anchor/Program Host/Newscaster of the Program, in accordance with the direction of ABC and/or its authorized representatives.

1.1.   DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES – TALENT shall:

1. Render his/her services as a newscaster on the Program;
2. Be involved in news-gathering operations by conducting interviews on- and off-the-air;
3. Participate in live remote coverages when called upon;
4. Be available for any other news assignment, such as writing, research or camera work;
5. Attend production meetings;
6. f. On assigned days, be at the studios at least one (1) hour before the live telecasts;
7. Be present promptly at the studios and/or other place of assignment at the time designated by ABC;
8. Keep abreast of the news;
9. Give his/her full cooperation to ABC and its duly authorized representatives in the production and promotion of the Program; and
10. Perform such other functions as may be assigned to him/her from time to time.

    x x x x

1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS, INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS – TALENT agrees that he/she will promptly and faithfully comply with the requests and instructions, as well as the program standards, policies, rules and regulations of ABC, the KBP and the government or any of its agencies and instrumentalities.^[27]

x x x x

In Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Pena,^[28] we said that the elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are:  (a) the selection and engagement of the employee, (b) the payment of wages, (c) the power of dismissal, and (d) the employer’s power to control. The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.^[29]

The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of petitioner.  Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages.  ABC also had power to dismiss her.  All these being present, clearly, there existed an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC.

Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds of employees, namely:  (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.^[30]  In other words, regular status arises from either the nature of work of the employee or the duration of his employment.^[31]  In Benares v. Pancho,^[32] we very succinctly said:

…[T]he primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee vis-à-vis the usual trade or business of the employer.  This connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.  If the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business.  Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.^[33]

In our view, the requisites for regularity of employment have been met in the instant case.  Gleaned from the description of the scope of services aforementioned, petitioner’s work was necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer which includes, as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement, its participation in the government’s news and public information dissemination.  In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four years.  This repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the petitioner’s work in private respondent ABC’s business.^[34]

The contention of the appellate court that the contract was characterized by a valid fixed-period employment is untenable.  For such contract to be valid, it should be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.  There should have been no force, duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon the employee; neither should there be any other circumstance that vitiates the employee’s consent.^[35]  It should satisfactorily appear that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance being exercised by the employer over the employee.^[36]  Moreover, fixed-term employment will not be considered valid where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee.^[37]

In the case at bar, it does not appear that the employer and employee dealt with each other on equal terms.  Understandably, the petitioner could not object to the terms of her employment contract because she did not want to lose the job that she loved and the workplace that she had grown accustomed to,^[38] which is exactly what happened when she finally manifested her intention to negotiate.  Being one of the numerous newscasters/broadcasters of ABC and desiring to keep her job as a broadcasting practitioner, petitioner was left with no choice but to affix her signature of conformity on each renewal of her contract as already prepared by private respondents; otherwise, private respondents would have simply refused to renew her contract.  Patently, the petitioner occupied a position of weakness vis-à-vis the employer.  Moreover, private respondents’ practice of repeatedly extending petitioner’s 3-month contract for four years is a circumvention of the acquisition of regular status.  Hence, there was no valid fixed-term employment between petitioner and private respondents.

While this Court has recognized the validity of fixed-term employment contracts in a number of cases, it has consistently emphasized that when the circumstances of a case show that the periods were imposed to block the acquisition of security of tenure, they should be struck down for being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.^[39]

As a regular employee, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure and can be dismissed only for just cause and after due compliance with procedural due process.  Since private respondents did not observe due process in constructively dismissing the petitioner, we hold that there was an illegal dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision dated January 30, 2004 and Resolution dated June 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63125, which held that the petitioner was a fixed-term employee, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The NLRC decision is AFFIRMED.

Costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

---

[1] Rollo, pp. 207-220.  Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Remedios Salazar-Fernando concurring.

^[2] Id. at 246.  Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, with Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Mariano C. Del Castillo concurring.

^[3] Id. at 90-125.

^[4] CA rollo, pp. 105-107.

^[5] Id. at 108-112.

^[6] Id. at 121.

^[7] Id. at 123.

^[8] Id. at 213-214.

^[9] Id. at 155-169.

^[10] Id. at 124-125.

^[11] Rollo, p. 180.

^[12] Id. at 195.

^[13] Id. at 220.

^[14] 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 activity exists.

^[15] Rollo, p. 217.

^[16] Id. at 382.

^[17] Id. at 335.

^[18] Id. at 387.

^[19] Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 355, 359.

^[20] Cirelos v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 146523, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 625, 635.

^[21] G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 583.

^[22] Rollo, pp. 420-421.

^[23] See ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Marquez, G.R. No. 167638, June 22, 2005, pp. 5-6 (Unsigned Resolution), where the Court held what petitioner ABS-CBN called “talents” as regular employees. The Court declared: “It may be so that respondents were assigned to a particular tele-series. However, petitioner can and did immediately reassign them to a new production upon completion of a previous one. Hence, they were continuously employed, the tele-series being a regular feature in petitioner’s network programs. Petitioner’s continuous engagement of respondents from one production after another, for more than five years, made the latter part of petitioner’s workpool who cannot be separated from the service without cause as they are considered regular. A project employee or a member of a workpool may acquire the status of a regular employee when the following concur: there is continuous rehiring of project employees even after the cessation of the project and the tasks performed by the alleged “project employee” are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the usual business or trade of his employer. It cannot be denied that the services of respondents as members of a crew in the production of a tele-series are undoubtedly connected with the business of the petitioner. This Court has held that the primary standard in determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of his employer. Here, the activity performed by respondents is, without doubt, vital to petitioner’s trade or business.”

^[24] See Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, supra note 21, at 599, which also held that in the United States, aside from the right of control test, there are the “economic reality” test and the “multi-factor test.”  The tests are drawn from statutes, regulations, rules, policies, rulings, case law and the like.  The “right of control” test applies under the Federal Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).  The “economic reality” test applies to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) uses a hybrid of these two tests often referred to as the “multi-factor test” in determining who an employee is.

^[25] Rollo, p. 95.

^[26] Supra note 21, at 596.

^[27] CA rollo, p. 113.

^[28] G.R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004, 434 SCRA 53.

^[29] Id. at 61, 62.

^[30] Philippine Fruit & Vegetable Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122122, July 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 673, 681.

^[31] Bernardo v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 122917, July 12, 1999, 310 SCRA 186, 204-205.

^[32] G.R. No. 151827, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 652.

^[33] Id. at 660.

^[34] Samson v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 113166, February 1, 1996, 253 SCRA 112, 123.

^[35] Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494, February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA 702, 716 cited in Pangilinan v. General Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, July 12, 2004, 434 SCRA 159, 170.

^[36] Pangilinan v. General Milling Corporation, id.

^[37] Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152427, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 265, 273.

^[38] Rollo, p. 425.

^[39] Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada-Lopez, G.R. No. 162839, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 253, 258-259.

 

E-Library Doc. ID: a45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd6467c1e9c4a92c

 

 

 

 

Andrew Tan is not only the country’s newest taipan, he is also the country’s newest dollar billionaire.

The combined market value of Tan’s holding company, Alliance Global, and Megaworld jumped to over P152 billion on Monday, when Alliance Global resumed trading after a $447-million follow-on offering.

In early February, when details of the additional offering were still being finalized, the combined market value of the two Tan companies was still “only” below P83 billion. In short, Tan’s market valuation has nearly doubled in just four months.

Based on our back-of-the-envelope calculations, the 57-year-old BSBA magna cum laude graduate of the University of the East and his wife Katherine easily account for P80 billion of that nearly doubled pie.

On top of that, the Tan couple, through their Yorkshire Holdings, obtained a $227-million (P10.44 billion) windfall as a result of having cashed out about 23 percent in Alliance Global stake, which became the basis for the blockbuster re-offering that also raised $200 million for Alliance Global’s coffers.

“It was a blow-out success,” gushed UBS’s Lauro Baja, his investment bank itself fatter by P207 million in underwriting fees.

Money-go-round

• Newscaster Thelma Dumpit-Murillo has won the illegal dismissal case she filed way back in 1999 against the Edward Tan-era Channel 5.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and said that after four consecutive years and 15 renewals of Dumpit-Murillo’s talent contract, there already existed an employer-employee relationship between the newscaster and the TV station.

• Come-backing Senator Loren Legarda will thank her upper-crust supporters in a merienda-cena at the Manila Polo Club this afternoon.

• The Universal Re building, where the Journal Group of Publications will transfer to next month, is actually located at the corner of Paseo de Roxas and Perea Street, not Legaspi Street as was reported on Monday.

The Journal is the latest addition to the cast of colorful characters that call Perea home and/or office, from socialite-impresario Rosemarie Arenas to Villaraza and Angangco law firm to, of course, Mike Arroyo.

Heard through the grapevine

The post of administrator of the Light Rail Transit Authority, currently held by El Shaddai nominee Mel Robles, will likely be awarded next to a nominee of the Iglesia ni Cristo.

El Shaddai’s Bro. Mike Velarde will not object to the INC switch, according to the religious chatter, since the Iglesia church supported Bro. Mike’s Buhay party-list nominees in the last elections.

Robles, who was Bro. Mike’s spokesman before his government appointment, has headed the LRTA since September 2004.

(Web site: www.cocktales.com.ph; e-mail: cocktales_mst@pldtdsl.net)

 

 

 

 

Home > Nation > Top Stories

SC orders ABC-5 to pay fired newscaster P1M

06/20/2007 | 11:16 AM

Email this | Email the Editor | Print | Digg this | Add to del.icio.us

The Supreme Court second division has ordered television firm Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) Channel 5 to pay its former newscaster talent P1 million, ruling that the network unjustly failed to accord her regular employee benefits.

Radio station dzBB reported that the high court ordered ABC-5 to compensate Thelma Dumpit-Murillo, now with radio station dwIZ.

It said the high court, in an 11-page ruling penned by acting chief justice Leonardo Quisumbing, affirmed an earlier decision by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and overturned a previous ruling of the Court of Appeals.

The report said that while Murillo signed three-month talent contracts with ABC-5, she is considered a regular employee and is entitled to benefits and security of tenure.

Murillo argued that she had no choice then but to sign the talent contracts, saying she did not want to lose her job.

The high court said there was no sign Murillo signed the talent contract voluntarily.

In an interview on dzBB radio, Murillo hailed her court victory as a "landmark ruling."

"After seven long years the high court finally decided. It has been a lonely battle," she said.

"God is alive and he works in mysterious ways. While justice grinds exceedingly slow the smell of victory makes the wait all worth it," she added.

Murillo said the signing of talent contracts is a "circumvention of the law" that is "common" among broadcast networks.

She bemoaned that she had a hard time finding a job with other networks after she had filed the case.

She filed the case for illegal dismissal against ABC-5 in 2001, after staying in the network for four years. The period was before tycoon Antonio "Tony Boy" Cojuangco took over the company.

She recalled losing the case at the arbiter's level, but winning the appeal she filed at the NLRC.

ABC-5 management won the next round when the Court of Appeals cited what Murillo called a "technicality," prompting her to elevate the case to the high court. - GMANews.TV

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home > Pinoy Abroad > Balitang Pinoy

Sinibak na ABC 5 newscaster pinababayaran ng P1-M danyos

06/20/2007 | 03:59 PM

Email this | Email the Editor | Print | Digg this | Add to del.icio.us

Inatasan ng Korte Suprema ang television network na Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) Channel 5 na bayaran ang dati nilang newscaster ng halos P1 milyon, ayon sa ulat ng radio dzBB nitong Miyerkules.

Ayon sa ulat, ang kautusan ng second division ng SC ay bilang sweldo at danyos kay Thelma Dumpit-Murillo, na ngayon ay isang newscaster at host sa radio station dwIZ.

Ang kautusan ng korte ay pagsang-ayon sa naunang desisyon ng National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) pabor kay Murillo at pagbaliktad naman sa naging pasya ng Court of Appeals (CA).

Sinabi sa ulat na pumirma ng tatlong buwang kontrata bilang talent newscaster ng ABC-5 si Murillo ngunit ikokonsidera siyang regular employee at tatanggap ng benebisyo at may security of tenure.

Ayon kay Murillo, pumayag siyang pirmahan ang kontrata dahil ayaw niyang mawala ang naturang trabaho. Ngunit noong Oktubre 1999 ay tinanggal din siya sa trabaho.

Taong 2000 nang katigan ng National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ang posisyon ni Murillo pero ibinasura naman ito ng Court of Appeals dahil sa teknikalidad. Bunga nito, iniakyat ni Murillo ang usapin sa SC.

Sa 11-pahinang desisyon na isinulat ni Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, sinabi nito na walang palatandaan na boluntaryong pinirmahan ni Murillo ang kanyang kontrata bilang talent.

Sa panayam ng radio dzBB, pinuri ni Murillo ang pasya ng SC at itinuring niya itong "landmark ruling." "After seven long years the high court finally decided. It has been a lonely battle," aniya.

"God is alive and he works in mysterious ways. While justice grinds exceedingly slow the smell of victory makes the wait all worth it," dagdag pa niya.

Sinabi ni Murillo na nahirapan siyang makahanap ng trabaho sa ibang network matapos niyang isampa ang kaso.

Apat na taon na nagtrabaho si Murillo sa ABC-5 bago pa ito pamunuan ng business tycoon na si Antonio "Tony Boy" Cojuangco. - GMANews.TV

 

 

 

BACK IN FIGHTING FORM

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Hello blog fans and my apologies for the sudden disappearance. Not that nothing significant has happened but on the contrary, thinks have been happening at lightning speed that I hardly had the time to write down my random thoughts.  I can't believe my last post was still last year on the velada or Old Girls' Day at my high school alma mater the Assumption Convent and here am I again about to attend the next velada this August. Of course, this year is extra special for us Assumptionistas because of the cannonization of our Blessed Marie Eugenie at the Vatican which I sorely missed because of the elections.  But that's getting ahead of  the juicier stories which happened before the cannonization.

As you know, I am in the middle of an electoral protest as a result of the massive cheating which happened in our province of La Union particularly in the town of Rosario. i filed for a petition for revision of ballots so as to be able to open once more the ballot boxes and find out the truth as to who really won in the last elections.  What a surprise to see ballots with similar handwritings not just in one precinct but surfacing in other precincts. there were also ballots with distinctive marks and some precincts with no ballots at all or ballots were torn in half with the other half missing.

i was all ready to accept defeat  as i have stated in all my discourse if the elections were clean but i guess i was naive to believe it was gonna get any close to being clean. and so this protest.  i am determined to see this through and i am still ready to face defeat if that is the decision of the court but one thing for sure, there will be people who will be accountable and must be sent to jail. i wonder how can some of our teachers be part of this sham when they are suppose to be the educators of our children, the future leaders of our country. how can they gamble their retirement benefits for a small amount of instant gratification? What a sad commentary.

on a happier note, i am ecstatic over the decision of the Supreme court over the case which i filed back in 1999 against ABC 5 reversing the Court of Appeals decision and affirming the NLRC decision.  After seven long years, the supreme Court saw the merits of what I was fighting for and I feel vindicated that indeed, what this network is doing is against public policy and a circumvention of the law. Justice grinds exceedingly slow but the sweet smell of victory makes the long wait well worth it.  

and so i'm back… although on second thought, i never really left. nag meanwhile lang…. hehehe!