l'-epnlllic of t(Je ~Elbilippines

~upretnc QI:ourt
J'h}nguio Qtitp

FIRST DIVISION

NELSON V. BEGINO, GENER DEL G.R. No. 199166

VALLE, MONINA A VILA-LLORIN
AND MA. CRISTINA SUMAYAO, Present:
Petitioners,
SERENO, C.J,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
- versus - BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ

ABS-CBN CORPORATION Promulgated:

(FORMERLY, ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING CORPORATION) APR 2 0 2015
AND AMALIA VILLAFUERTE,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

The existence of an employer- employee relationship is at the heart of

this Petition for Review on Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, primarily assailing the 29 June 2011 Decision I rendered by the
Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 116928 .
which ruled out said relationship between the parties.

Rollo, pp. 28-49; Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga with Associate Justices
Maritlor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 199166

The Facts

Respondent ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN

Broadcasting Corporation) is a television and radio broadcasting corporation
which, for its Regional Network Group in Naga City, employed respondent
Amalia Villafuerte (Villafuerte) as Manager. There is no dispute regarding
the fact that, thru Villafuerte, ABS-CBN engaged the services of petitioners
Nelson Begino (Begino) and Gener Del Valle (Del Valle) sometime in 1996
as Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners Ma. Cristina
Sumayao (Sumayao) and Monina Avila-Llorin (Llorin) were likewise
similarly engaged as reporters sometime in 1996 and 2002, respectively.
With their services engaged by respondents thru Talent Contracts which,
though regularly renewed over the years, provided terms ranging from three
(3) months to one (1) year, petitioners were given Project Assignment Forms
which detailed, among other matters, the duration of a particular project as
well as the budget and the daily technical requirements thereof. In the
aforesaid capacities, petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items for
subsequent daily airings in respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program.2

While specifically providing that nothing therein shall be deemed or

construed to establish an employer-employee relationship between the
parties, the aforesaid Talent Contracts included, among other matters,
provisions on the following matters: (a) the Talent’s creation and
performance of work in accordance with the ABS-CBN’s professional
standards and compliance with its policies and guidelines covering
intellectual property creators, industry codes as well as the rules and
regulations of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcasters sa Pilipinas (KBP) and
other regulatory agencies; (b) the Talent’s non-engagement in similar work
for a person or entity directly or indirectly in competition with or adverse to
the interests of ABS-CBN and non-promotion of any product or service
without prior written consent; and (c) the results-oriented nature of the
talent’s work which did not require them to observe normal or fixed working
hours.3 Subjected to contractor’s tax, petitioners’ remunerations were
denominated as Talent Fees which, as of last renewal, were admitted to be
pegged per airing day at P273.35 for Begino, P 302.92 for Del Valle,
P 323.08 for Sumayao and P 315.39 for Llorin.4

Claiming that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN, petitioners

filed against respondents the complaint5 docketed as Sub-RAB 05-04-

2
Id. at 255-258; 336-337.
3
Id.
4
Id. at 198.
5
Id. at 362-370.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 199166

00041-07 before the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) Sub-

Regional Arbitration Branch No. 5, Naga City. In support of their claims for
regularization, underpayment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay,
service incentive leave pay, damages and attorney's fees, petitioners alleged
that they performed functions necessary and desirable in ABS-CBN's
business. Mandated to wear company IDs and provided all the equipment
they needed, petitioners averred that they worked under the direct control
and supervision of Villafuerte and, at the end of each day, were informed
about the news to be covered the following day, the routes they were to take
and, whenever the subject of their news coverage is quite distant, even the
start of their workday. Due to the importance of the news items they
covered and the necessity of their completion for the success of the program,
petitioners claimed that, under pain of immediate termination, they were
bound by the company’s policy on, among others, attendance and
punctuality.6

Aside from the constant evaluation of their actions, petitioners were

reportedly subjected to an annual competency assessment alongside other
ABS-CBN employees, as condition for their continued employment.
Although their work involved dealing with emergency situations at any time
of the day or night, petitioners claimed that they were not paid the labor
standard benefits the law extends to regular employees. To avoid paying
what is due them, however, respondents purportedly resorted to the simple
expedient of using said Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms
which denominated petitioners as talents, despite the fact that they are not
actors or TV hosts of special skills. As a result of this iniquitous situation,
petitioners asseverated that they merely earned an average of P7,000.00 to
P8,000.00 per month, or decidedly lower than the P21,773.00 monthly salary
ABS-CBN paid its regular rank-and-file employees. Considering their
repeated re-hiring by respondents for ostensible fixed periods, this situation
had gone on for years since TV Patrol Bicol has continuously aired from
1996 onwards.7

In refutation of the foregoing assertions, on the other hand,

respondents argued that, although it occasionally engages in production and
generates programs thru various means, ABS-CBN is primarily engaged in
the business of broadcasting television and radio content. Not having the
full manpower complement to produce its own program, the company had
allegedly resorted to engaging independent contractors like actors, directors,
artists, anchormen, reporters, scriptwriters and various production and
technical staff, who offered their services in relation to a particular program.

6
Id. at 399-451.
7
Id.
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 199166

Known in the industry as talents, such independent contractors inform ABS-

CBN of their availability and were required to accomplish Talent
Information Forms to facilitate their engagement for and appearance on
designated project days. Given the unpredictability of viewer preferences,
respondents argued that the company cannot afford to provide regular work
for talents with whom it negotiates specific or determinable professional fees
on a per project, weekly or daily basis, usually depending on the budget
allocation for a project.8

Respondents insisted that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and/or

Project Assignment Forms, petitioners were hired as talents, to act as
reporters and/or cameramen for TV Patrol Bicol for designated periods and
rates. Fully aware that they were not considered or to consider themselves
as employees of a particular production or film outfit, petitioners were
supposedly engaged on the basis of the skills, knowledge or expertise they
already possessed and, for said reason, required no further training from
ABS-CBN. Although petitioners were inevitably subjected to some degree
of control, the same was allegedly limited to the imposition of general
guidelines on conduct and performance, simply for the purpose of upholding
the standards of the company and the strictures of the industry. Never
subjected to any control or restrictions over the means and methods by
which they performed or discharged the tasks for which their services were
engaged, petitioners were, at most, briefed whenever necessary regarding the
general requirements of the project to be executed.9

Having been terminated during the pendency of the case, Petitioners

filed on 10 July 2007 a second complaint against respondents, for
regularization, payment of labor standard benefits, illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice, which was docketed as Sub-RAB 05-08-00107-07.
Upon respondents’ motion, this complaint was dismissed for violation of the
rules against forum shopping in view of the fact that the determination of the
issues in the second case hinged on the resolution of those raised in the
first.10 On 19 December 2007, however, Labor Arbiter Jesus Orlando
Quiñones (Labor Arbiter Quiñones) resolved Sub-RAB 05-04-00041-07 in
favor of petitioners who, having rendered services necessary and related to
ABS-CBN’s business for more than a year, were determined to be its regular
employees. With said conclusion found to be buttressed by, among others,
the exclusivity clause and prohibitions under petitioners’ Talent Contracts
and/or Project Assignment Forms which evinced respondents’ control over
them,11 Labor Arbiter Quiñones disposed of the case in the following wise:
8
Id. at 372-398.
9
Id.
10
Id. at 201-202.
11
Id. at 69-81.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 199166

WHEREFORE, finding merit in the causes of action set forth by

the complainants, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainants
MONINA AVILA-LLORIN, GENER L. DEL VALLE, NELSON V.
BEGINO and MA. CRISTINA V. SUMAYAO, as regular employees of
respondent company, ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Accordingly, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is

hereby ORDERED to pay complainants, subject to the prescriptive period
provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, however applicable, the
total amount of Php2,440,908.36, representing salaries/wage differentials,
holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, to include
10% of the judgment award as attorney’s fees of the judgment award
(computation of the monetary awards are attached hereto as integral
part of this decision).

Moreover, respondents are directed to admit back complainants to

work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to their
separation or, at respondents' option, merely reinstated in the payroll.

Other than the above, all other claims and charges are ordered
DISMISSED for lack of merit.12

Aggrieved by the foregoing decision, respondents elevated the case on

appeal before the NLRC, during the pendency of which petitioners filed a
third complaint against the former, for illegal dismissal, regularization, non-
payment of salaries and 13th month pay, unfair labor practice, damages and
attorney’s fees. In turn docketed as NLRC Case No. Sub-RAB-V-05-03-
00039-08, the complaint was raffled to Labor Arbiter Quiñones who issued
an Order dated 30 April 2008, inhibiting himself from the case and denying
respondents’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and forum
shopping.13 Finding that respondents’ control over petitioners was indeed
manifest from the exclusivity clause and prohibitions in the Talent Contracts
and/or Project Assignment Forms, on the other hand, the NLRC rendered a
Decision dated 31 March 2010, affirming said Labor Arbiter’s appealed
decision.14 Undeterred by the NLRC’s 31 August 2010 denial of their
motion for reconsideration,15 respondents filed the Rule 65 petition for
certiorari docketed before the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 116928 which, in
addition to taking exceptions to the findings of the assailed decision, faulted
petitioners for violating the rule against forum shopping.16

On 29 June 2011, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision,

reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Ruling out the
12
Id. at 80.
13
Id. at 205-206.
14
Id. at 83-90.
15
Id. at 91-93.
16
Id. at 577-653.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 199166

existence of forum shopping on the ground that petitioners' second and third
complaints were primarily anchored on their termination from employment
after the filing of their first complaint, the CA nevertheless discounted the
existence of an employer-employee relation between the parties upon the
following findings and conclusions: (a) petitioners, were engaged by
respondents as talents for periods, work and the program specified in the
Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms concluded between them;
(b) instead of fixed salaries, petitioners were paid talent fees depending on
the budget allocated for the program to which they were assigned; (c) being
mainly concerned with the result, respondents did not exercise control over
the manner and method by which petitioner accomplished their work and, at
most, ensured that they complied with the standards of the company, the
KBP and the industry; and, (d) the existence of an employer-employee
relationship is not necessarily established by the exclusivity clause and
prohibitions which are but terms and conditions on which the parties are
allowed to freely stipulate.17

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision was

denied in the CA's 3 October 2011 Resolution,18 hence, this petition.

The Issues

Petitioners seek the reversal of the CA’s assailed Decision and

Resolution on the affirmative of the following issues:

1. Whether or not the CA seriously and reversibly erred in not

dismissing respondents’ petition for certiorari in view of the fact that they
did file a Notice of Appeal at the NLRC level and did not, by themselves or
through their duly authorized representative, verify and certify the
Memorandum of Appeal they filed thereat, in accordance with the NLRC
Rules of Procedure; and

2. Whether or not the CA seriously and reversibly erred in brushing

aside the determination made by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties,
despite established jurisprudence supporting the same.

17
Id. at 28-48.
18
Id. at 66-67.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 199166

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds the petition impressed with merit.

Petitioners preliminarily fault the CA for not dismissing respondents’

Rule 65 petition for certiorari in view of the fact that the latter failed to file
a Notice of Appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s decision and to verify and
certify the Memorandum of Appeal they filed before the NLRC. While
concededly required under the NLRC Rules of Procedure, however, these
matters should have been properly raised during and addressed at the
appellate stage before the NLRC. Instead, the record shows that the NLRC
took cognizance of respondents’ appeal and proceeded to resolve the same in
favor of petitioners by affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Not having
filed their own petition for certiorari to take exception to the liberal attitude
the NLRC appears to have adopted towards its own rules of procedure,
petitioners were hardly in the proper position to raise the same before the
CA or, for that matter, before this Court at this late stage. Aside from the
settled rule that a party who has not appealed is not entitled to affirmative
relief other than the ones granted in the decision19 rendered, liberal
interpretation of procedural rules on appeal had, on occasion, been favored
in the interest of substantive justice.20

Although the existence of an employer-employee relationship is, on

the other hand, a question of fact21 which is ordinarily not the proper subject
of a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari like the one at bar, the
conflicting findings between the labor tribunals and the CA justify a further
consideration of the matter.22 To determine the existence of said relation,
case law has consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit: (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 employee on the
means and methods by which the work is accomplished.23 Of these criteria,
the so-called “control test” is generally regarded as the most crucial and
determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to
exist where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the

19
Cabatulan v. Buat, 491 Phil. 421, 430 (2005)
20
Mabuhay Development Industries v. NLRC, 351 Phil. 227, 234-235 (1998).
21
Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. v. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, 8 August 2011, 655 SCRA 193, 202.
22
Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort, Inc. v. Dual, G.R. No. 180660, 20 July 2010, 625 SCRA 147,
155.
23
Bernarte v. Philippine Basketball Association, G.R. No. 192084, 14 September 2011, 657 SCRA
745, 754.
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 199166

right to control not only the end result but also the manner and means
utilized to achieve the same.24

In discounting the existence of said relationship between the parties,

the CA ruled that Petitioners' services were, first and foremost, engaged thru
their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms which specified the
work to be performed by them, the project to which they were assigned, the
duration thereof and their rates of pay according to the budget therefor
allocated. Because they are imbued with public interest, it cannot be
gainsaid, however, that labor contracts are subject to the police power of the
state and are placed on a higher plane than ordinary contracts. The
recognized supremacy of the law over the nomenclature of the contract and
the stipulations contained therein is aimed at bringing life to the policy
enshrined in the Constitution to afford protection to labor.25 Insofar as the
nature of one’s employment is concerned, Article 280 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines also provides as follows:

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 service 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.

It has been ruled that the foregoing provision contemplates four kinds
of employees, namely: (a) regular employees or those who have been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer; (b) project employees or those
whose 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; (c) seasonal employees or those who work or

24
Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corp., G.R. No. 159890, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 368,
379.
25
GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, G.R. No. 176419, 27 November 2013, 710 SCRA 690, 699.
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 199166

perform services which are seasonal in nature, and the employment is for the
duration of the season; and (d) casual employees or those who are not
regular, project, or seasonal employees.26 To the foregoing classification of
employee, jurisprudence has added that of contractual or fixed term
employee which, if not for the fixed term, would fall under the category of
regular employment in view of the nature of the employee’s engagement,
which is to perform activity usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s
business.27

The Court finds that, notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent

Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the terms and condition
embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN. Time
and again, it has been ruled that the test to determine whether employment is
regular or not is the reasonable connection between the activity performed
by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer.28 As
cameramen/editors and reporters, petitioners were undoubtedly performing
functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business of broadcasting
television and radio content. It matters little that petitioners’ services were
engaged for specified periods for TV Patrol Bicol and that they were paid
according to the budget allocated therefor. Aside from the fact that said
program is a regular weekday fare of the ABS-CBN’s Regional Network
Group in Naga City, the record shows that, from their initial engagement in
the aforesaid capacities, petitioners were continuously re-hired by
respondents over the years. To the mind of the Court, respondents’ repeated
hiring of petitioners for its long-running news program positively indicates
that the latter were ABS-CBN’s regular employees.

If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year,
even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated or continuing performance as sufficient evidence of the
necessity, if not indispensability of that activity in the business.29 Indeed, an
employment stops being co-terminous with specific projects where the
employee is continuously re-hired due to the demands of the employer’s
business.30 When circumstances show, moreover, that contractually
stipulated periods of employment have been imposed to preclude the
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, this Court has not hesitated
in striking down such arrangements as contrary to public policy, morals,
26
Leyte Geothermnal Power Progressive Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Philippine National Oil
Company-Energy Development Corporation, 662 Phil. 225, 233 (2011).
27
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo, G.R. No. 186439, 15 January 2014, 713
SCRA 596, 607.
28
Malicdem v. Marulas Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 204406, 26 February2014, 717 SCRA
563, 573 citing Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. NLRC, 503 Phil. 875 (2005).
29
Id.
30
D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Jamin, G.R. No. 192514, 18 April 2012, 670 SCRA 235, 249.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 199166

good customs or public order.31 The nature of the employment depends,

after all, on the nature of the activities to be performed by the employee,
considering the nature of the employer’s business, the duration and scope to
be done, and, in some cases, even the length of time of the performance and
its continued existence.32 In the same manner that the practice of having
fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent
contracts valid and compliant with labor law, it has, consequently, been
ruled that the assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily
prevent a regular employment status.33

As cameramen/editors and reporters, it also appears that petitioners

were subject to the control and supervision of respondents which, first and
foremost, provided them with the equipments essential for the discharge of
their functions. Prepared at the instance of respondents, petitioners’ Talent
Contracts tellingly provided that ABS-CBN retained “all creative,
administrative, financial and legal control” of the program to which they
were assigned. Aside from having the right to require petitioners “to attend
and participate in all promotional or merchandising campaigns, activities or
events for the Program,” ABS-CBN required the former to perform their
functions “at such locations and Performance/Exhibition Schedules” it
provided or, subject to prior notice, as it chose determine, modify or change.
Even if they were unable to comply with said schedule, petitioners were
required to give advance notice, subject to respondents’ approval.34
However obliquely worded, the Court finds the foregoing terms and
conditions demonstrative of the control respondents exercised not only over
the results of petitioners’ work but also the means employed to achieve the
same.

In finding that petitioners were regular employees, the NLRC further

ruled that the exclusivity clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contracts
and/or Project Assignment Forms were likewise indicative of respondents’
control over them. Brushing aside said finding, however, the CA applied the
ruling in Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation35 where similar
restrictions were considered not necessarily determinative of the existence of
an employer-employee relationship. Recognizing that independent
contractors can validly provide his exclusive services to the hiring party,
said case enunciated that guidelines for the achievement of mutually desired
results are not tantamount to control. As correctly pointed out by

31
Caramol v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102973, 24 August 1993, 225 SCRA 582, 586.
32
Id. at 588 citing Baguio Country Club Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 28 February 1992, 206
SCRA 643, 649-651.
33
Dumpit-Murillo v. CA, 551 Phil. 725, 735 (2007).
34
Rollo, p. 256
35
G.R. No. 138051, 10 June 2004, 431 SCRA 583, 604.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 199166

petitioners, however, parallels cannot be expediently drawn between this

case and that of Sonza case which involved a well-known television and
radio personality who was legitimately considered a talent and amply
compensated as such. While possessed of skills for which they were
modestly recompensed by respondents, petitioners lay no claim to fame
and/or unique talents for which talents like actors and personalities are hired
and generally compensated in the broadcast industry.

Later echoed in Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals,36 this Court has

rejected the application of the ruling in the Sonza case to employees
similarly situated as petitioners in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.
Nazareno.37 The following distinctions were significantly observed
between employees like petitioners and television or radio personalities like
Sonza, to wit:

First. In the selection and engagement of respondents, no peculiar

or unique skill, talent or celebrity status was required from them because
they were merely hired through petitioner’s personnel department just like
any ordinary employee.

Second. The so-called "talent fees" of respondents correspond to

wages given as a result of an employer-employee relationship.
Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent fees, a
circumstance negating independent contractual relationship.

Third. Petitioner could always discharge respondents should it find

their work unsatisfactory, and respondents are highly dependent on the
petitioner for continued work.

Fourth. The degree of control and supervision exercised by

petitioner over respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation
that respondents are independent contractors.

The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of

the regular business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the
employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional
service, such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an
independent contractor. The Court will peruse beyond any such agreement
to examine the facts that typify the parties’ actual relationship.38
(Emphasis omitted)

36
Supra note 33.
37
534 Phil. 306 (2006).
38
Id. at 335-336.
 Decision 12 G.R. No. 199166

Rather than the project and/or independent contractors respondents

claim them to be, it is evident from the foregoing disquisition that petitioners
are regular employees of ABS-CBN. This conclusion is borne out by the
ineluctable showing that petitioners perform functions necessary and
essential to the business of ABS-CBN which repeatedly employed them for
a long-running news program of its Regional Network Group in Naga City.
In the course ofsaid ~mployment, petitioners were provided the equipments
they needed, were required to comply with the Company's policies which
entailed prior approval and evaluation of their performance. Viewed from ·
the prism of these considerations, we find and so hold that the CA reversibly
erred when it overturned the NLRC's affirmance of the Labor Arbiter's
finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.
Given the fact, however, that Sub-RAB-V-05-03-00039-08 had not been
consolidated with this case and appears, for all intents and purposes, to be
· pending still, the Court finds that the reinstatement of petitioners ordered by
said labor officer and tribunal should, as a relief provided in case of illegal
dismissal, be left for determination in said case.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' assailed Decision dated 29

June 2011 and Resolution dated 3 October 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 116928
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Except for the reinstatement of Nelson
V. Begino, Gener Del Valle, Monina Avila-Llorin and Ma. Cristina
Sumayao, the National Labor and Relations· Commission's 31 March 2010
Decision is, accordingly, REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

J EZ

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson
 Decision 13 G.R. No. 199166

·~~k~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice

~~
ESTELA M. ·~ERLAS-BERNABE
Associate JustiCe

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
·before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice