Del Rosario vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation

Workers in the broadcast industry who are continuously re-hired by a network from one program to another to perform tasks necessary and desirable to the network's business of broadcasting and production are regular employees, not independent contractors or project employees, notwithstanding their classification as "talents" under an internal job market system; a work pool arrangement does not negate regular employment status where the members are continuously re-hired for the same or similar tasks vital to the employer's trade.

ABS-CBN Corporation, formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, is a domestic corporation operating a wide network of television and radio stations under a legislative franchise (R.A. No. 7966). Its Articles of Incorporation state its primary purpose as television and radio network broadcasting, with additional purposes encompassing the recording and reproduction of moving pictures, provision of graphic, videographic, and cinematographic production services, and promotion and sale of advertising and marketing services. ABS-CBN's operations involve self-produced, co-produced, line-produced, and live-coverage programs, as well as block-timing arrangements and the airing of foreign canned shows. The workers involved in the consolidated petitions were engaged on various dates from 1992 to 2011 as cameramen, light men, gaffers, lighting directors, audio men, sound engineers, system engineers, VTR men, video engineers, technical directors, and drivers, assigned to the technical crew, production staff, and outside broadcast (OB) and production assistance (PA) van driver groups. In 2002, ABS-CBN implemented the Internal Job Market (IJM) System, a database of accredited technical and creative manpower offering services for a fee, under which the workers were reclassified from regular employees to "talents" and paid hourly rates.

ABS-CBN Corporation, a domestic corporation granted a franchise under Republic Act No. 7966 to operate television and radio broadcasting stations, hired the services of numerous workers on various dates from 1992 to 2011. These workers were engaged as cameramen, light men, gaffers, lighting directors, audio men, sound engineers, system engineers, VTR men, video engineers, technical directors, and drivers. Upon engagement, the workers were required to undergo training seminars and workshops to equip them with the skills necessary for their respective fields. After completing their training, they were assigned to render services in ABS-CBN's self-produced, co-produced, and live-coverage programs, where their presence was strictly required. ABS-CBN customarily hired three groups of employees for productions: the technical crew (cameramen, audio men, sound engineers, VTR men, light men, and the camera control unit group), the production staff, and the OB and PA van drivers. All members of these groups worked as one team, with the outcome of each production depending on their combined efforts. The workers were paid salaries twice a month, as evidenced by pay slips bearing ABS-CBN's corporate name, and their rate of wages was determined solely by ABS-CBN. The workers also received SSS, Pag-IBIG, PhilHealth, and other benefits, and ABS-CBN withheld taxes from their compensation.

Sometime in 2002, ABS-CBN adopted the Internal Job Market (IJM) System, described as a database providing users with a list of accredited technical or creative manpower who offered their services for a fee, including competency ratings and corresponding professional fees. Under this system, the workers were regarded as independent contractors rather than regular employees. The workers were asked to sign a contract placing them under the IJM Work Pool, in some cases without their consent or over their vehement objections. Upon implementation of the IJM System, each worker was given an hourly rate, and beginning January 2002, they were paid based on actual hours worked multiplied by their specified hourly rate. They did not receive overtime pay, premium pay, or holiday pay for work rendered during rest days, special holidays, and regular holidays.

Clamoring for better rights, the workers formed the ABS-CBN IJM Workers' Union and began demanding recognition as regular employees. In the latter part of 2002 through the first quarter of 2003, the workers filed cases for regularization before the Labor Arbiter. ABS-CBN maintained that accreditation under the IJM System did not create an employment relationship. In a Memorandum dated April 23, 2003, entitled "Re: Undocumented Personnel," ABS-CBN reclassified regular employees as talents or contractual employees, requiring all personnel engaged as talents to execute relevant talent contracts not later than May 15, 2003, after which any talent engagement not covered by contracts would be deemed discontinued. Fearful of losing their jobs, the workers signed the contracts. Sometime in 2007, ABS-CBN required the Payonan workers to sign employment contracts stating they were "freelance employees"; those who refused were deprived of their benefits.

In May 2010, ABS-CBN purportedly coerced union members to sign a contract and waive their claims for regularization. When the workers refused to comply, ABS-CBN effected a series of mass dismissals from June to September 2010, terminating those who refused to sign. No notice of termination was given, and the workers were barred from entering the company premises. These summary dismissals gave rise to numerous complaints for illegal dismissal with claims for monetary benefits, including overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, 13th month pay, night shift differential, and moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Over a span of almost eight years, various rulings were rendered by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA, with divergent outcomes across the eight petitions.

• Procedural Defects (Failure to File Motion for Reconsideration): ABS-CBN argued that the workers' failure to file a motion for reconsideration against the NLRC ruling in G.R. No. 222057 rendered the petition defective and dismissible.
• Forum Shopping: ABS-CBN claimed that the workers were guilty of forum shopping by instituting the illegal dismissal case notwithstanding the pendency of the regularization case.
• Application of Jalog: ABS-CBN maintained that the ruling in Jalog, et al. vs. NLRC, which declared cameramen and other workers of ABS-CBN's Engineering Department as talents and not regular employees, should be applied to the instant petitions due to the similarity of facts.
• Independent Contractor Status: ABS-CBN argued that the workers were talents, not regular employees, hired due to their distinct skill and artistry, and that they were not subject to ABS-CBN's control and supervision but were merely given guidelines in the performance of their work.
• Project/Program Employment: ABS-CBN contended that, should an employment relationship be found, the workers should be regarded as project or program employees assigned to specific programs or undertakings.
• Broadcasting, Not Production, as Main Business: ABS-CBN maintained that its main business was broadcasting, not the production of programs, and that it availed itself of various schemes such as block-timing, foreign canned shows, licensed programs, line production, co-production, self-production, and live coverages to air content and generate revenues.
• Work Pool of Independent Contractors: ABS-CBN argued that the IJM System was a work pool of independent contractors who were free to offer their services to other employers.

• Regular Employment: The workers clamored for recognition as regular employees of ABS-CBN, citing their performance of work necessary and desirable to ABS-CBN's business over many years.
• Four-Fold Test Elements: The workers pointed out that they were hired, paid, supervised, controlled, disciplined, and eventually dismissed by ABS-CBN, satisfying all elements of the four-fold test for employer-employee relationship.
• Illegal Dismissal: The workers claimed that as regular employees, they were illegally dismissed when ABS-CBN summarily terminated them without notice or just cause, barring them from company premises.
• CBA Benefits: The workers in the regularization cases sought inclusion in the rank-and-file bargaining unit and entitlement to CBA benefits as regular employees.
• Monetary Claims: The dismissed workers sought backwages, 13th month pay, holiday pay, overtime pay, premium pay, night shift differential, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

• Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the petitions should be dismissed on procedural grounds due to the workers' failure to file a motion for reconsideration against the NLRC ruling in G.R. No. 222057.
• Forum Shopping: Whether the workers are guilty of forum shopping by instituting the illegal dismissal case during the pendency of the regularization case.
• Stare Decisis (Jalog): Whether the ruling in Jalog, et al. vs. NLRC should be applied to the instant petitions due to similarity of facts.
• Employer-Employee Relationship: Whether the workers are employees of ABS-CBN.
• Regular Employment Status: Whether the workers are regular employees of ABS-CBN.
• Project/Program Employment: Whether the workers are project or program employees of ABS-CBN.
• Work Pool Arrangement: Whether the IJM System constitutes a work pool of regular employees or independent contractors.
• CBA Benefits: Whether the workers in the regularization cases are entitled to benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement with ABS-CBN.
• Illegal Dismissal and Remedies: Whether the workers in the illegal dismissal cases were illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement, backwages, and other benefits.

• Motion for Reconsideration: No. The failure to file a motion for reconsideration was not fatal because the issues raised before the CA were the same as those passed upon by the NLRC, falling under an established exception to the rule.
• Forum Shopping: No. The causes of action in the regularization and illegal dismissal cases were different, as the evidence required to prove each was distinct, and the illegal dismissal arose from a supervening event — the summary termination of the workers.
• Stare Decisis (Jalog): No. The Jalog ruling was affirmed by the Court through a minute resolution, which constitutes res judicata only as to the same parties and subject matter, and does not set a binding precedent for different litigants.
• Employer-Employee Relationship: Yes. All four elements of the four-fold test were satisfied: ABS-CBN selected and engaged the workers, paid their wages, wielded the power of dismissal, and exercised control over the means and methods of their work.
• Regular Employment Status: Yes. The workers performed activities necessary and desirable to ABS-CBN's business of broadcasting and production, as shown by the company's Articles of Incorporation and organizational structure, and were continuously re-hired over many years.
• Project/Program Employment: No. ABS-CBN failed to prove compliance with the requirements for project employment under Policy Instruction No. 40, including written contracts specifying the nature of work, rates of pay, and programs, and registration thereof.
• Work Pool Arrangement: The IJM System is a valid work pool arrangement, but its members are regular employees, not independent contractors, because they were continuously re-hired for the same or similar tasks vital to ABS-CBN's business.
• CBA Benefits: Yes. The workers in the regularization cases are regular rank-and-file employees who do not fall under any excluded category in the CBA, and are therefore entitled to CBA benefits.
• Illegal Dismissal and Remedies: Yes. The workers were illegally dismissed, entitled to reinstatement to the work pool, backwages (less periods of non-production), 13th month pay, holiday pay, and attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary award; claims for overtime pay, premium pay, night shift differential, and moral and exemplary damages were denied.

• Motion for Reconsideration: While the filing of a motion for reconsideration is generally an indispensable condition for a special civil action for certiorari, the rule is subject to exceptions, including where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. The issues before the NLRC — the existence of an employment relationship and the fact of illegal dismissal — were the very same questions raised before the CA. Requiring a motion for reconsideration would be futile when the issues were identical. Moreover, in labor cases, rules of procedure are merely tools to facilitate justice and must not be applied rigidly when strict application would frustrate substantial justice, especially where the workers' livelihood is at stake.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies founded on identical facts and circumstances, raising substantially similar issues. The test for identity of causes of action is whether the same evidence would support both actions. Here, although the parties were identical, the reliefs sought and causes of action were different. The regularization case concerned whether the workers were entitled to benefits of regular employment, while the illegal dismissal case arose from a supervening event — the summary termination of the workers during the pendency of the regularization cases — and required proof not only of the employer-employee relationship but also of the validity of the termination. The evidence in each case would differ, and ABS-CBN's own act of dismissing the workers gave rise to the separate cause of action for illegal dismissal.

• Stare Decisis (Jalog): The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere ordains that conclusions reached in one case should be applied to subsequent cases if the facts are substantially the same. However, the CA's decision in Jalog was affirmed by the Supreme Court through a minute resolution, which, pursuant to Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, constitutes res judicata only as to the same subject matter and same issues concerning the same parties. A minute resolution does not set a binding precedent if other parties or another subject matter is involved. Since Jalog involved different litigants, its ruling could not be applied to the workers in the instant petitions.

• Employer-Employee Relationship: The four-fold test was applied: (i) ABS-CBN selected and engaged the workers through its personnel department, as evidenced by BIR Form 2316, SSS, Pag-IBIG, and PhilHealth documents; (ii) ABS-CBN paid the workers' wages twice a month through pay slips bearing its corporate name, with rates determined solely by ABS-CBN, and withheld taxes; (iii) ABS-CBN wielded the power to discipline and dismiss, as the workers were under constant watch and required to follow company rules; and (iv) ABS-CBN exercised control over the means and methods of work, through production supervisors who monitored performance and ensured compliance with company standards, controlled work schedules and assignments, required attendance at seminars and workshops, and provided the equipment necessary for the work. The Court relied on Begino vs. ABS-CBN Corporation, which held that cameramen/editors and reporters were regular employees despite being engaged under Talent Contracts, because the nature of employment depends on the activities performed in relation to the employer's business, not on the nomenclature of the contract. Labor contracts are subject to the police power of the State and placed on a higher plane than ordinary contracts, such that contracts designed to circumvent tenurial security cannot stand.

• Regular Employment Status: Under Article 280 (now Article 294) of the Labor Code, regular employees are those engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The necessity of the functions is ascertained by considering the nature of the work and its relation to the particular business in its entirety. ABS-CBN's Articles of Incorporation expressly state that its business includes the recording and reproduction of moving pictures, visuals, and stills, the provision of graphic, videographic, photographic, and cinematographic production services, and the promotion and sale of advertising and marketing services. The workers — cameramen, light men, gaffers, lighting directors, audio men, sound engineers, system engineers, VTR men, video engineers, technical directors, and drivers — played an indispensable role in the production and reproduction of shows and post-production services, and even in obtaining commercial revenues through advertisements. The workers' positions were included in ABS-CBN's plantilla under the Network Engineering Group and Production Engineering Services, and News and Current Affairs Department, serving as clear proof of the importance of their functions. The Court distinguished the workers from the talent in Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., who possessed unique skills and celebrity status, had bargaining power with ABS-CBN's high-level officials, received a hefty talent fee based on agreement terms rather than hours worked, enjoyed artistic creativity over the contents and delivery of his lines, and could not be disciplined or terminated by ABS-CBN. In contrast, the workers here were hired through the Human Resources Department, did not possess peculiar skills or celebrity status, received basic salaries and standard benefits, were subject to ABS-CBN's control and discipline, and were assigned to perform routinary tasks across diverse program genres and even banal tasks as property custodians and maintenance personnel.

• Project/Program Employment: Under DOLE Policy Instruction No. 40, program employees in the broadcast industry are those engaged for a particular or specific program or undertaking, who do not observe normal working hours, and who are allowed to enter into employment contracts with other persons, stations, or agencies. Program employees are project employees under Article 280, and their engagement must be under a written contract specifying the nature of work, rates of pay, and programs, duly registered with the Broadcast Media Council. For employment to be project-based, the employer must prove that the employee was hired for a specific project and notified of its duration and scope. ABS-CBN failed to adduce any evidence of compliance: there was no proof that the workers were notified beforehand of the duration and scope of their projects, no confirmation of contract registration, and no evidence of submission of notices of termination or completion of projects. ABS-CBN's failure to present these documents, which were in its custody, was taken against it. The Court relied on Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. vs. Oberio and Television and Production Exponents, Inc. vs. Servaña, where the employer's failure to provide a project employment contract proved that the so-called talents were in reality regular employees.

• Work Pool Arrangement: Work pools have been recognized in the construction, shipping, security, and motion picture industries — businesses with foreseeable suspensions of work. The broadcast industry is allied with the film industry and likewise involves periods with foreseeable suspension of work. The IJM System functions as a work pool from which ABS-CBN draws manpower for the production of television programs, containing a database of accredited workers with competency ratings and professional fees. Both parties acknowledged the existence of the IJM System work pool and the workers' inclusion therein. However, following Maraguinot, Jr. vs. NLRC and Tomas Lao Construction vs. NLRC, members of a work pool acquire regular employment status if they were continuously (as opposed to intermittently) re-hired by the same employer for the same or similar tasks, and the tasks they perform are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the employer's usual business. The continuous re-hiring of IJM System members from one program to another bestowed regular employment status, even though they were allowed to offer services to other employers. During lulls in production, the workers are treated as being on leave of absence without pay, and ABS-CBN is not obliged to pay them during such temporary breaks. The employer must prove that (i) a work pool in fact exists, and (ii) the members are free to leave and offer services to other employers.

• CBA Benefits: The CBA provides that the appropriate bargaining unit consists of regular rank-and-file employees, excluding supervisors, confidential employees, casual or probationary employees, and personnel on contract status or paid for specified units of work such as writer-producers, talent artists, and singers. The workers, being regular rank-and-file employees, do not fall under any excluded category. Following Fulache vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. and Nazareno, where production assistants, cameramen, assistant editor/teleprompter operators, video editors, and VTR operators were declared part of the bargaining unit of ABS-CBN's rank-and-file employees, the workers here are entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract.

• Illegal Dismissal and Remedies: As regular employees, the workers could not be dismissed except for just or authorized cause under the Labor Code. ABS-CBN failed to prove any just or authorized cause, and the workers were barred from company premises without notice or warning. The dismissed workers are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages from the time compensation was withheld up to actual reinstatement. However, as regular work pool employees, reinstatement is to the work pool, and backwages are subject to deduction of periods when ABS-CBN was not undertaking production of programs, following the "suspension of work" and "no pay" principles in Maraguinot. ABS-CBN was directed to provide the Labor Arbiter with necessary data to determine the periods of programs for each worker; upon failure to do so, backwages shall be computed from illegal dismissal until reinstatement without deduction. The workers are entitled to 13th month pay and holiday pay, with the burden of proof on the employer to show payment, which ABS-CBN failed to do. Claims for overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and night shift differential were denied because the burden is on the employee to prove these claims, which are not incurred in the normal course of business, and the workers failed to prove they actually rendered such service. Moral and exemplary damages were denied for lack of factual and legal basis. Attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary award were granted because the case involved unlawfully withheld wages and the workers were forced to litigate. All amounts due earn legal interest of 6% per annum.

• Four-Fold Test for Employer-Employee Relationship — The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by four elements: (i) the selection and engagement of the employee; (ii) the payment of wages; (iii) the power of dismissal; and (iv) the power of control over the employee's conduct, or the "control test." The control test is the most important, examining whether the employer controls not only the end result but also the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The Court applied all four elements to the ABS-CBN workers, finding that ABS-CBN hired them through its personnel department, paid their wages, wielded the power to discipline and dismiss, and exercised control over their work schedules, assignments, performance evaluation, and equipment provision.

• Regular Employment Under Article 280 (now 294) of the Labor Code — An employee is regular when engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The necessity of the functions is ascertained by considering the nature of the work and its relation to the scheme of the particular business in its entirety. Continuous re-hiring over many years is a strong factor indicating regular employment, as it demonstrates the persisting need for the worker's services.

• Nature of Employment Not Determined by Contract Nomenclature — The nature of employment does not depend on the will or word of the employer, the procedure for hiring, or the manner of designating the employee, but on the activities performed by the employee in relation to the employer's business. A talent contract does not necessarily prevent an employee from acquiring regular employment status. Labor contracts are subject to the police power of the State and are placed on a higher plane than ordinary contracts; contracts designed to circumvent tenurial security cannot stand.

• Work Pool Doctrine in the Broadcast Industry — A work pool may exist in industries with foreseeable suspensions of work, including the broadcast industry, which is allied with the film industry. Members of a work pool acquire regular employment status if: (i) they were continuously, as opposed to intermittently, re-hired by the same employer for the same or similar tasks; and (ii) the tasks they perform are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the employer's usual business. During lulls in production, work pool employees are treated as being on leave of absence without pay, and the employer is not obliged to pay them during such temporary breaks. The employer must prove that (i) a work pool in fact exists, and (ii) the members are free to leave and offer services to other employers.

• Minute Resolutions and Stare Decisis — A minute resolution constitutes res judicata only as to the same subject matter and same issues concerning the same parties. It does not set a binding precedent if other parties or another subject matter is involved. Stare decisis applies only where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court.

• Forum Shopping Test — The test for identity of causes of action is whether the same evidence would support both actions, or whether there is identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. A supervening event — such as the summary dismissal of workers during the pendency of a regularization case — gives rise to a distinct cause of action for illegal dismissal, negating forum shopping.

• Burden of Proof in Monetary Claims — In claims for holiday pay and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment, as the pertinent records are in the employer's custody. For overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and night shift differential, the burden is on the employee, as these claims are not incurred in the normal course of business.

• "The nature of the employment does not depend on the will or word of the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the employee, but on the activities performed by the employee in relation to the employer's business." — This passage articulates the controlling principle that contract nomenclature cannot override the substantive nature of the employment relationship, and is frequently cited in subsequent labor jurisprudence on regular employment status.

• "Besides, it must be remembered that labor contracts are subject to the police power of the State and are placed on a higher plane than ordinary contracts. This means that the Court shall not hesitate to strike down any contract that is designed to circumvent an employee's tenurial security." — This passage establishes the State's police power over labor contracts as the basis for invalidating contractual arrangements designed to deprive workers of security of tenure.

• "A work pool may exist although the workers in the pool do not receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary breaks in the business, provided that the worker shall be available when called to report for a project." — This passage defines the essential characteristics of a valid work pool arrangement, drawing from Maraguinot, Jr. vs. NLRC and establishing the framework for work pool recognition in the broadcast industry.

• "the greater the control exercised by the employer, the greater the likelihood that the worker is an employee. The converse holds true as well — the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor." — This passage, drawn from Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., provides the inverse relationship between employer control and independent contractor status, serving as a practical gauge for applying the control test.

• Begino vs. ABS-CBN Corporation, 758 Phil. 467 (2015) — Controlling precedent directly applied. The Court held that cameramen/editors and reporters engaged under Talent Contracts were regular employees of ABS-CBN because they performed functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN's broadcasting business and were subject to the company's control. The Court applied Begino's reasoning to the instant workers, finding the same indicators of regular employment.

• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Nazareno, 534 Phil. 306 (2006) — Followed. The Court held that production assistants repeatedly hired but treated as talents were regular employees, as their tasks were necessary or desirable in ABS-CBN's business and the persisting need for their services demonstrated the necessity and indispensability of such services. The Court applied Nazareno's framework to the instant workers and relied on it for CBA entitlement.

• Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. — Distinguished. The Court used Sonza to define the characteristics of a true talent or independent contractor — unique skills, celebrity status, bargaining power, talent fees based on agreement, artistic freedom, and immunity from discipline — and contrasted these with the workers' circumstances to show they were not similarly situated.

• Maraguinot, Jr. vs. NLRC, 348 Phil. 580 (1998) — Followed. The Court affirmed the existence of work pools in the motion picture industry and applied the doctrine by analogy to the broadcast industry, adopting the principles of "suspension of work" and "no pay" during lulls, and the treatment of work pool employees as on leave of absence without pay between projects.

• Tomas Lao Construction vs. NLRC, 344 Phil. 268 (1997) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the proposition that members of a work pool remain regular employees even if allowed to seek employment elsewhere during lulls, and that non-payment during temporary cessation does not denote project employment.

• Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 716 Phil. 676 (2013) — Followed. The Court applied this case to hold that a minute resolution affirming the CA's decision in Jalog does not set a binding precedent for different parties, thus precluding application of stare decisis.

• Fulache vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., 624 Phil. 562 (2010) — Followed. The Court cited this case, together with Nazareno, for the proposition that regular employees such as production assistants, cameramen, and video editors are part of the bargaining unit of ABS-CBN's rank-and-file employees and entitled to CBA benefits.

• Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. vs. Oberio, 551 Phil. 802 (2007) and Television and Production Exponents, Inc. vs. Servaña, 566 Phil. 564 (2008) — Followed. The Court used these cases to establish that an employer's failure to provide a project employment contract as mandated by Policy Instruction No. 40 proves that the so-called talents or project workers are in reality regular employees.

• Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. vs. NLRC, 330 Phil. 306 (1996) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that members of a work pool could be either project employees or regular employees, depending on whether they were continuously re-hired for tasks vital to the employer's business.

• Article 280 (now Article 294), Labor Code of the Philippines — Defines regular employees as those engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, and project employees as those whose employment is fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement. Applied to determine that the workers were regular employees because their functions were necessary and desirable to ABS-CBN's business and they were continuously re-hired.

• Article 111, Labor Code of the Philippines — Provides for attorney's fees in cases of unlawful withholding of wages. Applied to award attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award, since the case included a claim for unlawfully withheld wages and the workers were forced to litigate.

• Presidential Decree No. 851 (13th Month Pay Law) — Requires all employers to pay their employees a 13th month pay. Applied to award 13th month pay to the workers, with the burden of proof on ABS-CBN to show payment, which it failed to do.

• DOLE Policy Instruction No. 40 — Governs employer-employee relationship, hours of work, and dispute settlement in the broadcast industry, distinguishing between regular station employees and program employees. Applied to determine that the workers were regular station employees, not program employees, because ABS-CBN failed to comply with the requirements for program employment contracts and registration.

• Republic Act No. 7966 — Granted ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation its franchise to construct, install, operate, and maintain television and radio broadcasting stations. Cited as the legislative franchise under which ABS-CBN operated, which expired on May 5, 2020.

• Section 9, Republic Act No. 10963 (TRAIN Law) — Tax reform law cited in connection with the computation of 13th month pay pursuant to applicable labor and tax laws.

Perlas-Bernabe, Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred.

Leonen, J., concurred and issued a separate concurring opinion. (The text of the separate opinion was not included in the provided case material, so its substance cannot be summarized.)

Peralta, C.J., Carandang, J., Lazaro-Javier, J., and Gaerlan, J., took no part. Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on leave.