Search results
FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU, Respondent. D E C I S I O N. LEONEN, J.: It is the burden of the employer to prove that a person whose services it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without a fixed term.
In Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu,73 we explained the parameters of reviewing a Rule 45 labor petition before this Court, which assails a resolution on a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals.
ARLENE S. ESPIRITU, GR No. 204944-45, 2014-12-03. Facts: Arlene S. Espiritu ("Arlene") was engaged by Fuji Television Network, Inc. ("Fuji") as a news correspondent/producer [4] "tasked to report Philippine news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office." [5] .
Fuji alleges that Arlene was an independent contractor, citing Sonza v. ABS-CBN and relying on the following facts: (1) she was hired because of her skills; (2) her salary was US$1,900.00, which is higher than the normal rate; (3) she had the power to bargain with her... employer; and (4) her contract was for a fixed term.
Fuji Television vs Espiritu (Digest) - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Arlene Espiritu was hired by Fuji Television Network as a news correspondent in 2005, with her contract being renewed yearly. [1]
1) Arlene Espiritu was engaged by Fuji Television Network as a news correspondent for over 10 years on successive yearly contracts. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Arlene was a regular employee, not an independent contractor, as her work was necessary to Fuji's business.
FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU, GR No. 204944-45, 2014-12-03. Facts: In 2005, Arlene S. Espiritu ("Arlene") was engaged by Fuji Television Network, Inc. ("Fuji") as a news correspondent/producer [4] "tasked to report Philippine news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office." [5]
