NLRC junks illegal dismissal case filed by resigned 'Eat Bulaga' employees vs TAPE


The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) junked a case for illegal dismissal, and non-payment of benefits including overtime filed by nine resigned "Eat Bulaga" employees against show producer Television and Production Exponents Inc. (TAPE) and its CEO and president, Romeo Jalosjos. 

TAPE produced the shows “Eat Bulaga” and “Tahanang Pinakamasaya.” 

TAPE6.jpg

The logo of the Television and Production Exponents Inc. (Photo from TAPE's Facebook page) 

The former employees worked as production staff for “Eat Bulaga” under TAPE. They were hired between 1998 to 2022.  

They resigned on May 31, 2023 and June 2, 2023. Tito and Vic Sotto, and Joey de Leon left “Eat Bulaga” and TAPE on May 31 last year. 

The case was filed by former TAPE employees Khrisanto Tiu, utility staff; Nikki Tombado, VTR playback assistant; Jerson Plaviano, researcher and VTR management; Alilie Francisco, talent coordinator; Joselito Jardeleza, cameraman; Joseph Alonzo, cameraman; Richard Llamoso, cameraman; Emir Mallari, lighting director; and Mark Anthony Napiere, cameraman. 

According to the NLRC, which is under the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the complaint was for “regularization, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, 13th month pay and nightshift differential, damages, attorney's fees and other causes of action, i.e., non-payment of special project, unexplainable deductions.” 

The NLRC also rendered a decision on the allegation of illegal dismissal. 

“Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the present complaint,” the NLRC ruled in a decision dated March 27 this year but was released recently. 

TAPE spokesperson and lawyer Maggie Abraham-Garduque hailed the NLRC decision. 

“TAPE felt vindicated. From the start TAPE is for the employees. That was the reason why they continued to air ‘Eat Bulaga sans TVJ and other key employees who went with them for their new show at TV5. TAPE thought of the 200 employees left who will have no work if they did not continue with the show. This as a prelude, I hope the truth will start to come out,” she said. 

The NLRC ruled on the case after the former employees and TAPE and Jalosjos failed to reach an amicable settlement last year. 

In its ruling, the NLRC junked the complainants’ claim that they were illegally dismissed by TAPE.  

“In illegal dismissal cases, before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Obviously, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to its legality or illegality,” the commission stated. 

It ruled that “the record of the case is bereft of any showing that complainants were dismissed, but they instead resigned from respondent company." 

“There is no evidence more glaring and conclusive than the resignation letters written and submitted by complainants themselves. The voluntary nature of complainants’ action manifested itself clearly to this office and belies their claim of constructive dismissal. The totality of the evidence presented indubitably shows that complainants resigned from their employment without any coercion or compulsion from respondents,” the NLRC said in the decision. 

It added, “It is not enough for complainants to claim constructive dismissal because they were allegedly not properly paid their salary/ wages during their employment with respondents. Underpayment, by itself, does not constitute constructive dismissal as would entitle one to the reliefs for an illegally dismissed employee.” 

The NLRC ruled that the former TAPE employees “were fully aware of the effects of their resignation as well as its consequences. An unconditional and categorical letter of resignation cannot be considered indicative of constructive dismissal if it is submitted by an employee fully aware of its effects and implications.” 

“Complainants in the present case failed to show any substantial evidence that they were treated unfairly and, thus, they were forced to resign. They failed to show any tangible acts of harassment, insults, and any abuse that would warrant a possible finding of constructive dismissal,” it said. 

According to the NLRC, “Complainants failed to establish the fact of their dismissal when they failed to prove that their resignation was involuntary. Consequently, no constructive dismissal can be found.”

The NLRC also dismissed the complainants’ claim for separation pay, and attorney’s fees and damages for “having no legal grounds to justify said award complainant having effectively resigned from respondent company. Also, it is well to note that there is no provision in the Labor Code that grants separation pay to voluntarily resigning employees.” 

“As for the claim for overtime pay, complainants failed to adduce evidence that they rendered actual overtime work which would entitle them to overtime pay. Likewise, for lack of proof of rendition of work during holidays and rendition of work during night time which would entitle them to salary differentials, the same must be dismissed,” it said. 

It added, “As regards the claim for 13th month pay, it appears that respondents [TAPE and Jalosjos] have been paying the same." 

The commission said the "complainants simply and deliberately failed to specify the inclusive dates subject of their claims and consequently failed to prove that they had actually rendered work in those specific work days. No proof of entitlement was offered in the present case to justify such award. Such omission on the part of the complainants renders their claims without any factual basis.”

“Basic is the rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. The burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove it by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent.  Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability,” it explained. 

It said that “while this office is intent on furthering the plight of every employee, fact remains that the same must still be done within the parameters of law and procedure. Without necessarily ignoring social justice considerations raised in every labor complaint filed with this office, fact remains that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC while not being bound by technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, does not give it the right to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules.”

“All other claims are denied for want of factual and legal basis,” the NLRC said in the decision. 

TAPE changed the name of its noontime show from “Eat Bulaga” to “Tahanang Pinakamasaya” last January after a Marikina court ruled, prohibiting it from using “Eat Bulaga” and “EB” and canceled its trademark registrations. 

TAPE filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) last January to reverse the decision. 

However, “Tahanang Pinakamasaya” had its last live episode on March 2 and the show went off the air on March 8 based on a decision by GMA Network and TAPE.