1.
Fuji Television vs Espiritu Arlene was hired by Fuji as a news producer, but there was no evidence that
G.R. No. 204944-45
03 December 2014
Ponente: Leonen, J.
Digest by: Aldaba, JB
Recit-Ready:
Facts:
Espiritu was engaged by Fuji Television Network, Inc. as a news
correspondent/producer tasked to report Philippine news to Fuji through its
Manila Bureau field office. The employment contract was initially for one year,
but was successively renewed on a yearly basis with salary adjustments upon
every renewal.
In January 2009, Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer. She informed Fuji
about her condition, and the Chief of News Agency of Fuji, Yoshiki Aoki,
informed the former that the company had a problem with renewing her
contract considering her condition. Arlene insisted she was still fit to work as
certified by her attending physician.
After a series of verbal and written communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a
non- renewal contract. In consideration thereof, Arlene acknowledged the
receipt of the total amount of her salary from March-May 2009, year-end
bonus, mid-year bonus and separation pay. However, Arlene executed the
non-renewal contract under protest.
Arlene filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NCR Arbitration Branch
of the NLRC, alleging that she was forced to sign the non-renewal contract
after Fuji came to know of her illness. She also alleged that Fuji withheld her
salaries and other benefits when she refused to sign, and that she was left with
no other recourse but to sign the non-renewal contract to get her salaries.
Issues:
1. Whether Arlene is an Independent Contractor or a Regular Employee?
2. Whether or not Arlene illegally dismissed?
Held:
1. Arlene is a Regular Employee with a fixed-term contract and not an
Independent Contractor.
she was hired for her unique skills that would distinguish her from ordinary
employees. Her monthly salary appeared to be a substantial sum. Fuji had the
power to dismiss Arlene, as provided for in her employment contract. The
contract also indicated that Fuji had control over her work as she was rquired
to report for 8 hours from Monday to Friday. Fuji gave her instructions on what
to report and even her mode of transportation in carrying out her functions was
controlled.
Therefore, Arlene could not be an independent contractor.
In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-
regular, the applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade
of the employer. The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work
undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking into the nature of the services
rendered and its relation to the general scheme under which the business or
trade is pursued in the usual course. It is distinguished from a specific
undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities required in carrying on
the particular business or trade.
However, there may be a situation where an employee’s work is necessary
but is not always desirable in the usual course of business of the employer. In
this situation, there is no regular employment.
Fuji’s Manila Bureau Office is a small unit and has a few employees. Arlene
had to do all activities related to news gathering. She also had to report for
work in Fuji’s office in Manila from Mondays to Fridays, eight hours per day.
She had no equipment and had to use the facilities of Fuji to accomplish her
tasks.
The successive renewals of her contract indicated the necessity and
desirability of her work in the usual course of Fuji’s business. Because of this,
Arlene had become a regular employee with the right to security of tenure.
Arlene’s contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean that she
could never be a regular employee. For as long as it was the employee who
requested, or bargained, that the contract have a “definite date of termination,”
or that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer and the
employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will be upheld.
2. As a regular employee, Arlene was entitled to security of tenure under Article
279 of the Labor Code and could be dismissed only for just or authorized
causes and after observance of due process.

The expiration of the contract does not negate the finding of illegal dismissal.
The manner by which Fuji informed Arlene of non-renewal through email a
month after she informed Fuji of her illness is tantamount to constructive
dismissal. Further, Arlene was asked to sign a letter of resignation prepared
by Fuji. The existence of a fixed-term contract should not mean that there
can be no illegal dismissal. Due process must still be observed.

Moreover, disease as a ground for termination under Article 284 of the Labor
Code and Book VI, Rule 1, Section 8 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code require two requirements to be complied with: (1) the employee’s
disease cannot be cured within six months and his continued employment is
prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-
employees; and (2) certification issued by a competent public health authority
that even with proper medical treatment, the disease cannot be cured within
six months. The burden of proving compliance with these requisites is on the
employer. Non-compliance leads to illegal dismissal. blesvirtualLawlibrary

Arlene was not accorded due process. After informing her employer of her
lung cancer, she was not given the chance to present medical certificates.
Fuji immediately concluded that Arlene could no longer perform her duties
because of chemotherapy. Neither did it suggest for her to take a leave. It did
not present any certificate from a competent public health authority.

Therefore, Arlene was illegally dismissed.