Home » News » Talents Win Landmark Labor Case vs. GMA Network After 11 Years

Talents Win Landmark Labor Case vs. GMA Network After 11 Years

the Supreme Court (SC) has​ ruled that ⁣the 94 members of the Talents⁣ Association of GMA (TAG) ⁢are the media ⁤giant’s regular ​employees, marking ⁣a landmark victory for the TAG’s 11-year battle.

In a resolution made public ⁤on Saturday, January 24, the SC Third Division upheld the Court of ‍Appeals (CA) decision that ruled the 94 TAG ⁤members as regular employees ‍of GMA Network.

“Talents are regular employees, ​deserving of security adn statutory benefits. We believed that since ​the beginning, and now ⁤there is jurisprudence to protect the next⁢ generation of media workers in the⁤ Philippines,” TAG said in a statement.

The SC, in the same​ decision, also ordered‌ the reinstatement of illegally dismissed GMA talents without ‌loss of seniority rights and other ⁤privileges.

They are also entitled to full backwages, including allowances “and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed‍ from the time their compensation⁤ was withheld from⁤ them up to ​the⁢ time⁣ of their actual reinstatement.”

“In ⁤the event that reinstatement ⁣is​ no longer⁢ an option, ‍Respondents in G.R. No. 254711 shall be awarded separation pay⁣ equivalent to one month​ salary for every year of service. Full backwages shall then be computed ⁤from‍ the ⁤date of their dismissal until the‍ finality of this Resolution.”

There were two petitions that⁣ reached the High Court for this case.In GR No.⁢ 250673, the‍ issue was whether the GMA talents⁢ were the network’s⁢ regular employees. In‍ the separate GR No. 254711, the question was⁢ whether the‍ petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment.

In GR ⁤No. 250673, GMA Network argued that their talents are not regular employees, but rather self-reliant contractors as stated in ⁢their talent agreements. Though,⁢ the ⁣SC deduced‍ that‍ the respondents were not ‍independent contractors based on the general terms attached to their Talent Agreement.

GMA Network also used the Sonza vs.ABS-CBN ‍Broadcasting Corporation ‌case, where ⁤the SC ​declared television personality Jay Sonza⁣ as⁤ an independent contractor.

“GMA ‍cannot seek refuge in⁢ the‍ Court’s ruling in Sonza, where⁢ the Court⁤ did not ⁣consider the exclusivity clause in Sonza’s contract ‍as a form of​ control. Essentially, the ⁣monthly talent fee ​received by Sonza in 1994 amounted to at⁣ least PHP 300,000.00, whereas respondents’ salaries ranged from PHP 13,000.00 ⁢to PHP 84,000.00 in 2015,” the​ SC said.

“Given the foregoing, ⁤respondents cannot, ​by any stretch of creativity, be considered as⁢ independent contractors. The Court will not countenance the provision in the​ Talent Agreement classifying ⁢respondents as independent contractors when the contract, taken as ‌a whole, shows otherwise,” the High Court added.

Supreme Court Rules ‍in‍ Favor of GMA Network Employees in Dismissal Case

The Supreme Court of the ⁤Philippines ruled ‌in favor of 50 former‍ employees ⁢of GMA Network, finding their dismissals unlawful. The decision, stemming from ​a case filed nearly 12⁢ years ago, ⁣affirms the workers’ right to security of tenure and highlights deficiencies in the network’s ⁤dismissal procedures.

On Illegal Dismissal

GMA Network ‌and its chairman, Felipe ‍Gozon, argued in ​case GR No. 254711 that the ⁣15 respondents were legitimately​ dismissed for repeated, ‌unauthorized absences ‌that disrupted production schedules. Though, the Court found this claim unsubstantiated.

Under a GMA memorandum, the penalty for a first-time offense‌ of unauthorized absence is a written reminder. The network failed to‌ demonstrate that the 15 respondents missed one ‌to two schedules, nor did records‍ indicate prior ​offenses.

The Court also deemed the ⁣dismissal of‌ the remaining 35 respondents unlawful, citing a lack of proper written ⁢notification regarding contract renewals.

GMA’s failure⁢ to ​provide written ⁢renewal notices to the 35 respondents is inexcusable.Without such notice,the employees reasonably believed no renewal offer was forthcoming. They had ‍nothing ⁤to decline.

The Supreme Court reiterated the essential‌ right⁤ of regular employees to job security.

A regular employee has the right to security of tenure and cannot be dismissed from service ⁤unless grounded on just⁢ or authorized causes.

A Long Battle

This⁤ legal battle began on April 14,2014,when GMA⁢ issued an order…

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.