[ad_1]
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that television giant GMA Network, Inc. (GMA) had illegally fired 30 cameramen and camera assistants in May 2013.
Thus, in a ruling drawn up by Associate Judge Marvic Leonen, the Third Chamber of the Court ordered GMA to reinstate the cameramen and pay their back wages, allowances and other benefits from the moment of their illegal dismissal until the moment of their actual reinstatement.
The Court also ordered the media network to pay each of the petitioners’ lawyers fees equivalent to 10 percent of the total monetary compensation that corresponded to each of them.
It also imposed an interest of 6 percent per year on the amounts owed to each of the petitioners, which will be computed from the final date of the Court’s decision until full payment.
The petitioners were hired by the network between 2005 and 2011, but all were fired in May 2013.
The Court held that the defendant could not simply fire the petitioners as there was an employer-employee relationship between the network and the petitioners were hired as camera operators.
Contrary to the claim of the defendant network, the CV argued that the petitioners are considered regular employees of the network, therefore they enjoy the right to security of tenure considering that their functions “are necessary and desirable for the business and regular commerce of the employer achieve regular status from the time of commitment. “
The GMA argued that respondents consider themselves independent contractors and not employees.
To be considered independent contractors, the SC said the network should have demonstrated that the petitioners were hired for their unique skills and talents and that GMA had no control over the means and methods of their work.
The Court noted that it was not shown at all that the employees, who were paid a meager salary ranging from 750 to 1500 pesos per recording, were hired because of their unique skills, talents, and celebrity status not possessed by the common employees.
“In this case, GMA provided the equipment used during the recordings and assigned supervisors to monitor the performance of the petitioners and ensure their compliance with the company’s protocols and standards,” said the SC.
“The Court also gave weight to the petitioners’ arguments that they were regular employees who had performed necessary and desirable functions for GMA’s regular business as a television and broadcasting company,” he added.
The CV noted that GMA repeatedly hired the petitioners as camera operators for its television programs and that such activities are part of GMA’s regular and regular business.
The CV stressed that GMA should not be allowed to continue hiring and rehiring workers “solely on the basis of its whim, getting rid of them when, in its opinion, they lack prior utility, and with a view to eluding their right to security of tenure” .
The case has been referred to the Labor Arbitrator for the calculation of the back wages and other monetary compensation owed to the petitioners.
