Dumpit-Murillo vs Court of Appeals Fixed term employees Facts: 1.

Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was hired as a news caster and co-anchor for Balitang-Balita by Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) for 3 month contract. It was repeatedly renewed for four years until it expired. 2. She sent a letter to the president saying shes still interested in renewing her contract for a salary increase. And when there wasnt any formal reply to her letter, she sent a demand letter for reinstatement, unpaid wages and other money claims (13th month pay etc.). 3. ABC said that theyll only pay for her talent fees. 4. She filed a case of illegal constructive dismissal. LA: dismissed complaint NLRC: reversed; an employer-employee relationship exists; talent contract is void; shes a regular employee so shes illegally dismissed. CA: she should not be allowed to renege from the contract she had voluntarily and knowingly signed and invoke security of tenure; shes a fixed term employee, her job as agreed upon was only for a specified time. Contentions: ABC: The contracts she voluntarily entered is valid; theres no EE-ER relationship; and the industry works on a per talent contract basis. Murillo: an EE-ER Relationship started when her contract was repeatedly renewed for 15 times Issue: WON shes a fixed term employee. Held: NO Shes a regular employee *Theres an EE-ER relationship as ABC has control over the means and methods of her work (work assignments etc.) 1. The practice of having fixed term employees (per talent contract basis) does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant to labor law. 2. Regular employment: a. those who perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer b. those who rendered at least 1 year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity which they are employed for. 3. Murillos work is necessary to the business: participation in the government news, public information dissemination (basically being a newscaster), and her work has been continuous for 4 years. 4. For a contract with a fixed period to be valid, it should be shown that the fixed period was voluntarily and knowingly agreed upon by the parties. No existence of force of any circumstance which vitiates consent. 5. Fixed term employment is also not valid if periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee. 6. It does not appear that they dealt with the contract on equal terms because Murillo is left with no choice but to affix her signature on every renewal as she doesnt want to lose the

job she loves. And the repeated renewal of the 3 year periods is a circumvention of the acquisition of the regular status. 7. When circumstances show that the periods were imposed to block the acquisition of security of tenure (by being a regular employee), they should be struck down. The practice of repeatedly extending the 3 month contract is clearly circumvention of the employers right of security of tenure. Difference ng project and fixed term. For project employees, ok lang na series of employment contract. For fixed-term, hindi pwede. Circumvention yon.