TOPIC: EXCEPTION (TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE)

FUJI TV NETWORK V. ARLENE ESPIRITU

3 December 2014

Facts:
 Respondent Arlene Espiritu was a news correspondence/producer of Fuji. Her
contract initially provided for a term of 1 year but the same was renewed
successively on a yearly basis with salary adjustment upon every renewal.
 Sometime in 2009, she was diagnosed with lung cancer. She informed Fuji about
her condition. Despite her insistence that she was still fit to work, her contract
was not renewed. Arlene and Fuji signed a nonrenewal contract under which she
acknowledged receipt of $18, 050 (salary for March - May + bonus + separation
pay). Arlene affixed her signature with the initials UP – Under Protest.
 On 6 May 2009, the day after she signed the contract, she filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with the NCR Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. She alleged that
she was forced to sign the nonrenewal contract and that her salary was withheld
when she refused to sign.
 LA: Dismissed the complaint. Applied the four-fold test and held that Arlene was
an independent contractor. (cited Sonza v. ABS)
 NLRC: Reversed the LA. Held that Arlene was a regular employee since she
rendered services that were usually necessary and desirable to Fuji’s business.
Arlene and Fuji both filed MRs but both were denied.
 CA: Affirmed the NLRC with the modification that Fuji immediately reinstates
Arlene. She was also awarded moral and exemplary damages, backwages, 13th
month pay, SL and VL pay. CA held that Sonza does not apply because Arlene
was not hired because of her peculiar ability or special talent. Fuji filed an MR
and it was denied.
 Fuji maintains that Arlene was an independent contractor and that she was not
illegally dismissed.
 Arlene then filed a manifestation stating that the SC may not take jurisdiction
over the case since Fuji failed to authorize Corazon Acerden to sign the
verification. No board reso was attached.

Issues:
WON the petition for review should be dismissed as Acerden, the signatory of the
verification against non-forum shopping, had no authority to sign on behalf of Fuji – NO.
There was substantial compliance.
WON Arlene was a regular employee – YES

Ruling:
 Although the general rule is that failure to attach a verification and certification
against forum shopping is a ground for dismissal, there are cases where the SC
allowed substantial compliance. Here, the court held that there was substantial
compliance by Fuji TV.
 Being a corporation, Fuji exercises its power to sue and be sued through its
board of directors or duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, the physical act
of signing the verification and certification against forum shopping can only be
done by natural persons duly authorized either by the corporate bylaws or a
board resolution.
 A review of the board resolution quoted in the secretary’s certificate shows that
Fuji shall “file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals and participate in
any other subsequent proceeding that may necessarily arise therefrom, including
but not limited to the filing of appeals in the appropriate venue and that Shuji
Yano and Jin Eto are authorized to represent Fuji in any other proceeding that
may necessarily arise therefrom”
 As pointed out by Fuji, Shuji Yano and Jin Eto were also authorized to “act in the
Corporation’s name, place and stead to determine, propose, agree, decide, do,
and perform any and all of the following: 5. Such other matters as may aid in the
prompt disposition of the action.
 Considering that the subsequent proceeding that may arise from the petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals is the filing of a petition for review with this
court, Fuji substantially complied with the procedural requirement.
 Re: Delegation to Acerden: The secretary’s certificate does not state that Shuji
Yano is prohibited from appointing a substitute. In fact, he is empowered to do
acts that will aid in the resolution of this case.
 Fuji’s argument that Arlene was an independent contractor under a fixed-term
contract is contradictory. Employees under fixed-term contracts cannot be
independent contractors because in fixed-term contracts, an employer-employee
relationship exists. The test in this kind of contract is not the necessity and
desirability of the employee’s activities, but the day certain agreed upon by the
parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship.
 SC applied the four-fold test! Arlene was a regular employee. Fuji had the power
to dismiss Arlene, as provided for in paragraph 5 of her professional employment
contract. Her contract also indicated that Fuji had control over her work because
she was required to work for eight (8) hours from Monday to Friday, although on
flexible time.