1.
Laborer Dumpit-Murillo (“laborer”) worked for Associated Broadcasting Company
4. DUMPIT-MURILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007
Jon de Guia
NATURE Petition for review of the CA decision overturning NLRC ruling that petitioner
was illegally dismissed
Petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo
Respondent Associated Broadcasting Company, et. Al.
Ponente Acting C.J. Quisumbing
RECIT READY DIGEST
Thelma Dumpit-Murillo (“laborer”), who had worked as a newscaster for ABC for four years
under repeatedly renewed three-month contracts, stopped being contractually hired in 1991.
This is after she requested for increased wages. She sued for illegal dismissal and for sums due
her as a regular employee. LA dismissed the complaint, NLRC upheld the complaint, CA
dismissed it again, SC upheld it and ruled in Laborer’s favor. CA relied on the validity of the
contract and said that their stipulations fixing the term of laborer’s employment, binds her. SC
said she is considered a regular employee. This is because (1) her work is indispensable and (2)
she has been working with ABC for over a year. Also, CA erred in presuming validity since the
employee’s consent was vitiated; she did not “want to lose the job that she loved and the
workplace that she had grown accustomed to”.
DOCTRINE.
In Manila Water Company v. Pena, we said that the elements to determine the existence of an
employment relationship are: (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 most im-
portant element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.
xxx
Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds of employees, namely: (1) those
who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer [which looks into the nature of the work]; and (2) those who
have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the
activity in which they are employed [which looks into the duration of the work]
xxx
In Benares v. Pancho, we very succinctly said: “…If the employee has been performing for at
least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems
repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not
indispensability of that activity to the business.”
FACTS.
1 3
She still worked until around a month later (or until Oct. 20, 1991) despite expiry of the contract-period
(Sept. 30, 1991)
2
Including vacation / sick / service incentive leaves
LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR
(“ABC”) as newscaster and co-anchor for an early evening news program
2. The work was based on a three-month contract, which was repeatedly renewed over
the span of four years
3. Two weeks after the expiration of laborer’s last contract with ABC, such expiration
having occurred on Sept. 30, 1999, she notified ABC via letter that she wanted to
renew the contract, but with a salary increase
4. Later, laborer “stopped reporting for work”1
5. Months after, she wrote again saying, “should [she] not receive any formal response
from [ABC’s Vice President for News and Public Affairs]” three days from the date
the letter was sent, she “will deem it as a constructive dismissal of [her] services”
6. She received no response on the said date
7. Aggrieved, she made several demands via a later letter:
a. Reinstatement
b. Unpaid wages from Sept. 1 to Oct. 20, 1999
c. 13th month pay
d. Monetary benefits due to a regular employee2
8. ABC only agreed to the payment of (b) or her unpaid wages, but said the other claims
had no basis in fact or in law
9. Thus, she filed a complaint with the labor arbiter for illegal constructive dismissal,
non-payment of the sums stated in the demand letter as well as moral, exemplary and
actual damages, and attorney’s fees
10. Case elevation:
a. LA: Dismissed complaint
b. NLRC: Reversed LA and favored laborer; MR denied
c. CA: Initially dismissed for failure to attach certain documents, later dis-
missed for a different reason—that laborer’s contracts with ABC have been
voluntarily and knowingly entered into; thus, she should not be able to re-
nege on her obligations under such contracts; laborer is a fixed-term and not
a regular employee pursuant to Art. 280 of the Labor Code
ISSUES.
W/N laborer was an employee of ABC, and W/N she was regular employee—YES to both.
Refer to the DOCTRINE for the rules on employer-employee relationship and on regular em-
ployment.
Employer-Employee relationship:
It exists. Given that laborer’s contract asks her to “participate in live remote coverages when
called upon”, “be available for any other news assignment”, “be present… at the time desig-
nated by ABC”3, among other things, it is clear that ABC had control over her work. ABC also
dictated her wages and had the power to dismiss her.
Regular Employment:
Italics mine and choice of which provisions in the contract to cite is also mine; a perusal of the actual
contract—around a half-page—might aid the reader in further appreciating this case
There is regular employment. Here, ABC’s trade or business includes, as a pre-condition for its
enfranchisement, its participation in government news and public information dissemination.
Laborer Dumpit-Murillo was a newscaster who was required in the contract to “be involved in
news-gathering operations by conducting interviews on and off-the-air”, “participate in live cov-
erages when called upon”, “be available for any other news assignment,” among other things.
Thus, her work is necessary or desirable in ABC’s usual trade or business.

W/N CA was correct in upholding the validity of the fixed-term stipulation in her contracts
with ABC—NO

“The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all
talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law.” A requisite for validity of contracts would
be that the stipulations, more particularly, the one involving the fixed period, were “knowingly
and validly agreed upon by the parties.” Specific to labor cases, it should appear that there was
“no moral dominance” exercised by the employer over the employee.

Such is not present here. Laborer “could not object to the terms of her employment contract
because she did not want to lose the job that she loved and the workplace that she had grown
accustomed to.”

The Court “has consistently emphasized that when the circumstances of a case show that the
periods were imposed to block the acquisition of security of tenure, they should be struck down
for being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.”

DECISION.
Petition GRANTED. PETITIONER LABORER WON.

LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR