WILHEMINA S. OROZCO v.

THE FIFTH DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT

FACTS:
The case raised the question whether a newspaper columnist is an employee of the newspaper
which publishes the column.

March 1990, Philippine Daily Inquirer engaged the services of the petitioner to write a weekly
column for its Lifestyle section. She submitted her articles every week with the exception of the
six-month stint in New York City. She instead sent her articles through mail and received P250,
later on P300, for every column published.

November 7, 1992, her last column appeared in PDI. Petitioner was informed by her editor that
respondent Leticia Jimenez Magsanoc, PDI editor-in-chief, terminated her services for no reason.
After discussing with Magsanoc, petitioner found that it was PDI Chairperson Eugenia Apostol
who had asked to stop the publication of her column because it had many columnists already.

On the other hand, PDI claims that Magsanoc cut down the number of columnists in order to
improve the Lifestyle section, keeping only those columns that were well-written and popular.
Petitioner’s columns did not meet this standard and thus terminated.

Hence, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, moral and exemplary
damagaes, and other money claims before the NLRC.

LA: Rendered decision in favor of petitioner because the respondent company exercised full and
complete control over the petitioner’s work. Petitioner had to constraint her work to adopt the
subjects and writing style that suited her editor’s tastes. Furthermore, her articles were published
weekly over the course of 3 years, showing that she was a regular employee.

NLRC: Dismissed respondent’s appeal and affirmed LA decision.

CA: Reversed and set aside the NLRC decision. Held that NLRC misappreciated facts and
rendered ruling lacking in substantial evidence. (1) Respondent admitted that the petitioner has
never considered it as her employer, (2) no employment contract, based only on verbal
agreement, (3) petitioner stayed in New York without respondent’s permission, and (4) in
response to NLRC’s ruling on the control test, PDI only controls the results of the work and not
the means by which they were written.

ISSUE: WON a newspaper columnist is an employee of the newspaper which publishes the
column. – NO.
RULING:
No. The petitioner, a newspaper columnist, is not an employee of the newspaper which
publishes her work. Thus, it cannot be held guilt for illegal dismissal.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is essentially a question of fact. The

Although the petitioner admitted that she was not an employee of the respondents, this does not
define her employment status. it is defined and prescribed by law. The “four-fold test” is used to
determine this employer-employee relationship. The 4 elements are: (1) the selection or
engagement of the employee, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power of dismissal, and (4) the
employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. Petitioner argues that the respondents
exercised control over her work through (1) content [wanted to write about death in relation to
All Souls Day but was advised not to], (2) time control [deadlines], (3) control of space [length,
she was advised to send only 2-3 pages], and (4) discipline [reader’s eyes are trained to look for
and read the works of their favorite columnists and are thus conditioned to purchase the
newspaper daily].

However, the SC concluded that this is not a form of control that labor laws contemplate. Not all
rules are imposed by the hiring party indicate that the hired party is an employee. There must be
a line drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards achieving mutually desired
result and those that control or restrict the party hired. In the case at bar, the factors enumerated
by the petitioner are not meant to control her work but are simply inherent conditions in running
a newspaper, part of its very nature. Aside from the space allocation, her creativity was not
restrained. She was free to write a column in a manner and style she was used to. Limited subject
matter was also not form of control, but it was a logical consequence because her column
appeared in that particular section. Additionally, the newspaper’s power to approve or reject
publication is not considered control because it is only logical that the one who commissioned
the work can accept or reject the product. In contrast, a regular reporter is not as independent.
They are assigned specific beats, cannot switch to another beat without permission from the
editor, and can even be easily pulled out and cover another beat if necessary.

Therefore, if a person who works for another performs his job at his own pleasure, in a manner
he sees fit, not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated according to
the results of his efforts, then THERE IS NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

Aside from the control test, the economic reality test was also applied. The economic realities
within the activity or between parties are examined, taking into consideration the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between parties. The petitioner was
a columnist respondent who is also a women’s rights advocate, working in various women’s
organizations. She also contributes to other publications, so the petitioner is not dependent on her
employment with PDI.
The right to control is a dominant factor in determining whether one is an employee or an
independent contractor. The SC held that an independent contractor is one who carries on a
distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on one’s
own account and under one’s own responsibility according to one’s own manner and method,
free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance
of the work except as to the results thereof. In Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp, it was
determined that independent contractors posses unique skills, expertise, or talent that
distinguishes them from ordinary employees. This is similar to the case at bar as the petitioner
was engaged as a columnist due to her unique viewpoint as a feminist advocate. PDI was not
involved in the actual performance that produced the finished product. They are simply
guidelines expected in the newspaper business.

Considering that respondent PDI was not the petitioner’s employer, then it cannot be held guilty
of illegal dismissal.

PETITION IS DISMISSED. CA DECISION AFFIRMED.