1.

Implementation and interpretation of the

provisions of labor code.
Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is
said to exist where the person for whom the services
are performed reserves the right to control not only the
end result but also the manner and means utilized to
2. Who is an "employer" and an "employee"? achieve the same.

Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent

Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the
3. What determines the existence of an employer- terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are
employee relationship? regular employees of ABS-CBN.

As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that

4. What test is used to confirm the existence of an Petitioners were subject to the control and supervision
employer-employee relationship? of Respondents which provided them with the
equipment essential for the discharge of their
functions. The exclusivity clause and prohibitions in
their Talent Contract were likewise indicative of
Respondents' control over them, however obliquely
5. Distinguish Control over the Work and Control worded.
over the Result. What type of "control" is
indicative of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship? Also,the presumption is that when the work done is an
integral part of the regular business of the employer
and when the worker does not furnish an independent
business or professional service, such work is a regular
employment of such employee and not an independent
6. Can an employer-employee relationship co-exist contractor.
with another juridical relationship, e.g. vendor-
vendee, between the same parties? 8. Distinguish an "apprentice" from an
"employee".

7. Are workers in the broadcast industry

considered "talents" instead of employees? How do 9. Who are learners? Can they be considered
you determine if the worker is a "talent" and not employees?
an "employee"?
*Tiu v. NLRC G.R. No. 95845
"Talent" refers to an independent contractor or
individual who has unique skills, experience, and On February 18, 1986, private respondent filed a
talents or celebrity status and whose means and complaint, for illegal dismissal, violation of the
methods in the performance of his/her work is outside Minimum Wage Law and non-payment of the cost-of-
the control of another or the hiring party, and his/her living allowances, legal holiday pay, service incentive
service/engagement contract is governed by the Civil pay and separation pay, against petitioner. Petitioner
Code, as amended. denied that private respondent was his employee. But
after consideration of the parties' evidence, the Labor
Labor Advisory No. 04 Series 2016: Working Arbiter found that private respondent was an employee
Conditions of petitioner and that he had been illegally dismissed.
The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay private
Of the criteria to determine whether there is an
respondent the sum of P25,076.96, corresponding to
employer-employee relationship, the so-called "control
the latter's differentials, 13th month pay and separation
test" is generally regarded as the most crucial and
pay. On appeal, the Labor Arbiter's decision was
determinative indicator of the said relationship.
affirmed in toto by the NLRC. Hence this petition for
certiorari. Petitioner alleges that the NLRC's decision supported by substantial evidence, the findings will not
was made in "reckless disregard" of the applicable be disturbed on review in this Court.
facts and law and that it amounts to a grave abuse of
We agree with the finding that an employer-employee
discretion of the NLRC.[1]
relationship existed between petitioner and private
Petitioner, as operator of D'Rough Riders respondent, such finding is supported by substantial
Transportation, is engaged in the transportation of evidence. Petitioner has failed to refute the evidence
passengers from Cebu City to the northern towns of presented by the private respondent. He points to his
Cebu. Private respondent worked in petitioner's bus Chief Dispatcher, Regino dela Cruz, as the one who
terminals as a "dispatcher," assisting and guiding exercised the powers of an employer over the
passengers and carrying their bags. The Labor Arbiter "dispatchers." Petitioner argues that under an
and the NLRC found, and petitioner had admitted in agreement with Regino de la Cruz, it is the latter who
his position paper below, that private respondent was selects and engages the "dispatchers," dictates their
paid a regular daily wage of P20.00. time, supervises the performance of their work, and
pays their wages. He further argues that the
"disciplinary memorandum" issued by him was not
Petitioner denies that the private respondent was his addressed to private respondent but to Regino dela
employee. He alleges that he did not have the power of Cruz, as an employer of the private respondent, to
selection and dismissal nor the power of control over remind him regarding the discipline of the
private respondent. According to petitioner, private "dispatchers."
respondent, together with so-called "standbys," hung
around his bus terminals, assisting passengers with
their baggages as "dispatchers." Petitioner claims that, Petitioner's contention is without merit. In determining
in league with "bad elements" in the locality who whether there is an employer-employee relationship
threatened to cause damage to his passenger buses and between the parties the following questions must be
scare passengers away if petitioner and other bus considered: (a) who has the power of selection and
operators did not let them, private respondent and engagement of the employee? (b) who pays the wages
other "standbys" forced passengers to hire them as of employee? (c) who has the power of dismissal? and;
baggage boys. Petitioner alleges that he had no choice (d) who has the power to control the employee's
but to allow private respondent and other "standbys" to conduct?[4] Of these powers the power of control over
carry on their activities within the premises of his bus the employees' conduct is generally regarded as
terminals.[2] He also claims he allowed them to do so determinative of the existence of the relationship.[5]
even if their services as so-called "dispatchers" were The "control test," under which the person for whom
not needed in his business. Petitioner insists that as the services are rendered reserves the right to direct not
"dispatcher," private respondent worked in his own only the end to be achieved but also the means for
way, without supervision by him. reaching such end, is generally relied on by the courts.
[6]

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found private

respondent to be an employee of petitioner, applying The petitioner would have us believe that Chief
the Four-fold test, namely (a) who has the power of Dispatcher Regino dela Cruz exercised these powers
selection and engagement of the employees; (b) who on his own and independently of petitioner. This is
pays the wages; (c) who has the power of dismissal, untenable. Petitioner admits that Regino dela Cruz was
and (d) and who has the power to control the merely assigned to do dispatch work. While Regino
employees' conduct. dela Cruz took charge of the hiring of men and paid
their wages, he did so as he was told by petitioner. The
payment of salaries and wages came from petitioner.
Issue: WON Tiu is an employee of D'Rough Riders Regino dela Cruz filled up and signed daily time
Transportation records for dispatchers and took disciplinary action
against erring employees in accordance with
Held: instructions given to him by petitioner. In sum, it
Yes cannot be said that Regino dela Cruz was the employer
of the "dispatchers" or that he was an independent
The question of whether an employer-employee contractor. He was himself only an employee of
relationship exists is a question of fact. As long as the petitioner.
findings of the labor agencies on this question are
 construed for any previous failure to exercise its right
under any provision of this Agreement.
Indeed the "control test" only requires the existence of
the right to control the manner of doing the work in a c) Either of the parties hereto may likewise terminate
person, not necessarily the actual exercise of the power his Agreement at any time without cause, by giving to
by him, which he can delegate.[7] Consequently, in the the other party fifteen (15) days notice in writing.
case at bar, the power is exercised by Regino dela Cruz
Sometime in 2001, De Dios addressed a letter to
but it is power which is only delegated to him so that
Tongko, then one of the Metro North Managers,
in truth the power inherently and primarily is
regarding meetings wherein De Dios found Tongko's
possessed by petitioner. De la Cruz is a mere
views and comments to be unaligned with the
supervisor, while petitioner is the real employer.
directions the company was taking. De Dios also
expressed his concern regarding the Metro North
Managers' interpretation of the company's goals. He
*Tongko v. Manufacturers Life *Insurance GR No. maintains that Tongko's allegations are unfounded.
167622 Some allegations state that some Managers are
FACTS: Taking from the November 2008 decision, the unhappy with their earnings, that they're earning less
facts are as follows: than what they deserve and that these are the reasons
why Tonko's division is unable to meet agency
development objectives. However, not a single
Manager came forth to confirm these allegations.
Manufacturers Life Insurance, Co. is a domestic
Finally, De Dios related his worries about Tongko's
corporation engaged in life insurance business. De
inability to push for company development and
Dios was its President and Chief Executive Officer.
growth.
Petitioner Tongko started his relationship with
Manulife in 1977 by virtue of a Career Agent's
Agreement.
De Dios subsequently sent Tongko a letter of
termination in accordance with Tongko's Agents
Contract. Tongko filed a complaint with the NLRC
Pertinent provisions of the agreement state that:
against Manulife for illegal dismissal, alleging that he
It is understood and agreed that the Agent is an had an employer-employee relationship with De Dios
independent contractor and nothing contained herein instead of a revocable agency by pointing out that the
shall be construed or interpreted as creating an latter exercised control over him through directives
employer-employee relationship between the Company regarding how to manage his area of responsibility and
and the Agent. setting objectives for him relating to the business.
Tongko also claimed that his dismissal was without
a) The Agent shall canvass for applications for Life basis and he was not afforded due process. The NLRC
Insurance, Annuities, Group policies and other ruled that there was an employer-employee
products offered by the Company, and collect, in relationship as evidenced by De Dios's letter which
exchange for provisional receipts issued by the Agent, contained the manner and means by which Tongko
money due or to become due to the Company in should do his work. The NLRC ruled in favor of
respect of applications or policies obtained by or Tongko, affirming the existence of the employer-
through the Agent or from policyholders allotted by employee relationship.
the Company to the Agent for servicing, subject to
subsequent confirmation of receipt of payment by the
Company as evidenced by an Official Receipt issued
The Court of Appeals, however, set aside the NLRC's
by the Company directly to the policyholder.
ruling. It applied the four-fold test for determining
control and found the elements in this case to be
lacking, basing its decision on the same facts used by
b) The Company may terminate this Agreement for the NLRC. It found that Manulife did not exert control
any breach or violation of any of the provisions hereof over Tongko, there was no employer-employee
by the Agent by giving written notice to the Agent relationship and thus the NLRC did not have
within fifteen (15) days from the time of the discovery jurisdiction over the case.
of the breach. No waiver, extinguishment,
abandonment, withdrawal or cancellation of the right
to terminate this Agreement by the Company shall be
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of employer directives into how specific tasks are to be
Appeals and ruled in favor of Tongko. However, the done.
Supreme Court issued another Resolution dated June
29, 2010, reversing its decision. Tongko filed a motion
for reconsideration, which is now the subject of the In sum, the Supreme Court found absolutely no
instant case. evidence of labor law control. DENIED.
ISSUE: Did the Supreme Court err in issuing the June
29, 2010 resolution, reversing its earlier decision that
an employer-employee relationship existed? *Bernante v. PBA (Sept 14, 2011)

HELD: The Supreme Court finds no reason to reverse FACTS:

the June 29, 2010 decision. Control over the
Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato
performance of the task of one providing service both
Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the PBA
with respect to the means and manner, and the results
as referees. During the leadership of Commissioner
of the service is the primary element in determining
Emilio Bernardino, they were made to sign contracts
whether an employment relationship exists. The
on a year-to-year basis. During the term of
Supreme Court ruled petitioners Motion against his
Commissioner Eala, however, changes were made on
favor since he failed to show that the control Manulife
the terms of their employment.
exercised over him was the control required to exist in
an employer-employee relationship; Manulifes control
fell short of this norm and carried only the
characteristic of the relationship between an insurance Complainants were not illegally dismissed because
company and its agents, as defined by the Insurance they were not employees of the PBA. Their respective
Code and by the law of agency under the Civil Code. contracts of retainer were simply not renewed. PBA
had the prerogative of whether or not to renew their
contracts, which they knew were fixed.\
In the Supreme Courts June 29, 2010 Resolution, they
noted that there are built-in elements of control
specific to an insurance agency, which do not amount
to the elements of control that characterize an
employment relationship governed by the Labor
Code.The Insurance Code provides definite parameters The Labor Arbiter declared petitioner an employee
in the way an agent negotiates for the sale of the whose dismissal by respondents was illegal.Tthe
companys insurance products, his collection activities NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's judgment. The
and his delivery of the insurance contract or policy. Court of Appeals, which overturned the decisions of
They do not reach the level of control into the means the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals
and manner of doing an assigned task that invariably found petitioner an independent contractor since
characterizes an employment relationship as defined respondents did not exercise any form of control over
by labor law. the means and methods by which petitioner performed
his work as a basketball referee.
To reiterate, guidelines indicative of labor law
"control" do not merely relate to the mutually desirable ISSUE:
result intended by the contractual relationship; they
Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents,
must have the nature of dictating the means and
which in turn determines whether petitioner was
methods to be employed in attaining the result. Tested
illegally dismissed.
by this norm, Manulifes instructions regarding the
objectives and sales targets, in connection with the
training and engagement of other agents, are among
the directives that the principal may impose on the HELD: The petitioners are not employees of
agent to achieve the assigned tasks.They are targeted respondents.
results that Manulife wishes to attain through its
agents. Manulifes codes of conduct, likewise, do not
necessarily intrude into the insurance agents means LABOR LAW:
and manner of conducting their sales. Codes of
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is
conduct are norms or standards of behavior rather than
ultimately a question of fact. As a general rule, factual
issues are beyond the province of this Court. However,
this rule admits of exceptions, one of which is where Bustamante continued driving the jeepney
there are conflicting findings of fact between the Court under the supervision and control of Villamaria. But
of Appeals, on one hand, and the NLRC and Labor later he failed to comply with his obligations so that
Arbiter, on the other, such as in the present case. notice of compliance and warning were ensued. Until
in 2000, Villamaria took back the jeepney driven by
Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the
To determine the existence of an employer-employee vehicle. Hence, Bustamante filed a complaint for
relationship, case law has consistently applied the four- Illegal Dismissal.
fold test, to wit:
The LA ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed the
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee; Order for the reason that the juridical relationship
between Bustamante and Villamaria was that of
(b) the payment of wages; vendor and vendee. However, the CA affirmed the LA
(c) the power of dismissal; and on the ground that the relationship between Villamaria
and Bustamante was dual: that of vendor-vendee and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee on employer-employee.
the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished. Villamaria averred that their contract was a
combination of vendor-vendee and employer-
The so-called"control test"is the most important employee because they had clearly entered into a
indicator of the presence or absence of an employer- conditional deed of sale over the jeepney so that their
employee relationship. employer-employee relationship had been transformed
into that of vendor-vendee.
Issue:
The fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not
by itself prove that petitioner is an employee of the WoN the existence of a boundary-hulog
former. For a hired party to be considered an agreement negates the employer-employee relationship
employee, the hiring party must have control over the between the vendor and vendee.
means and methods by which the hired party is to
perform his work, which is absent in this case. The Ruling:
continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply No, The Kasunduan did not extinguish the
signifies the renewal of the contract between PBA and employer-employee relationship of the parties extant
petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services before the execution of said deed.
rendered by petitioner warranting such contract
renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue Under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated
petitioner's services at the end of the term fixed in the in the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was
contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or created between petitioner and respondent: that of
violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, or employer-employee and vendor-vendee.
for whatever other reason, the same merely results in
The fact that the driver does not receive fixed
the non-renewal of the contract, as in the present case.
wages but only the excess of the “boundary” given to
The non-renewal of the contract between the parties
the owner/operator is not sufficient to change the
does not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by
relationship between them. Indubitably, the driver
respondents.
performs activities which are usually necessary or
DENIED desirable in the usual business or trade of the
owner/operator.

*Villamaria v. Court of Appeals (April 19, 2006) Thus, the petition is denied.

Facts: Under the boundary-hulog scheme, a dual juridical

relationship is created; that of employer- employee and
Oscar Villamaria, Jr. operated passenger vendor-vendee. The Kasanduan did not extinguish the
jeepneys by employing drivers on a “boundary basis.” employer employee relationship of the parties existing
In 1997, Villamaria agreed to sell the jeepney to driver before the execution of said deed. a. Under this system
Bustamante under the “boundary-hulog scheme”. the owner/operator exercises control and supervision
Their contract stipulated the prohibitions, compliance over the driver. It is unlike in lease of chattels where
and restrictions. the lessor loses complete control over the chattel
leased but the lessee is still ultimately responsible for
the consequences of its use. The management of the against Matling and some of its corporate officersin the
business is still in the hands of the owner/operator, NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan
who, being the holder of the certificate of public City. The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint,
convenience, must see to it that the driver follows the raising theground, among others, that the complaint
route prescribed by the franchising and regulatory pertained to the jurisdiction of the Securities and
authority, and the rules promulgated with regard to the Exchange Commission (SEC) due to the
business operations. b. The driver performs activities controversy that therespondent was a member of
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual Matlings Board of Directors aside from being its
business or trade of the owner/operator. Under the Vice-President for Finance and Administration
Kasunduan, respondent was required to remit Php 550 prior to his termination. The respondent opposed the
daily to petitioner, an amount which represented the petitioners motion to dismiss, insisting that his status
boundary of petitioner as well as respondent’s partial as a member of Matlings Board of Directors was
payment (hulog) of the purchase price of the jeepney. doubtful, considering that he had not been formally
Thus, the daily remittances also had a dual purpose: elected as such; that he didnot own a single share of
that of petitioner’s boundary and respondent’s partial stock in Matling, considering that he had been made to
payment (hulog) for the vehicle. sign in blank an undated indorsement of the certificate
of stock he had been given in 1992; that Matling had
taken back and retained the certificate of stock in its
c. The obligation is not novated by an instrument that custody; and that even assuming that he had been a
expressly recognizes the old one, changes only the Director of Matling, he had been removed as the Vice
terms of payment and adds other obligations not President for Finance and Administration, not as a
incompatible with the old provisions or where the Director, a fact that the notice of his termination
contract merely supplements the previous one. d. The dated April 10, 2000 showed. On October 16,
existence of an employment relation is not dependent 2000, the LA granted the petitioners motion to
on how the worker is paid but on the presence or dismiss, ruling that the respondent was a corporate
absence of control over the means and method of the officer because he was occupying the position of
work. The amount earned in excess of the “boundary Vice President for Finance and Administration and
hulog” is equivalent to wages and the fact that the at the same time was a Member of the Board of
power of dismissal was not mentioned in the Directors of Matling; and that, consequently, his
Kasunduan did not mean that private respondent never removal was a corporate act of Matling and the
exercised such power, or could not exercise such controversy resulting from such removal was under
power. (2) YES. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC has the jurisdiction of the SEC.On March 13, 2001,
jurisdiction under Article 217 of the Labor Code is the NLRC set aside the dismissal,concluding that
limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee the respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal was
relationship which can only be resolved by reference to properly cognizable by the LA, not by the SEC,
the Labor Code, other labor statues of their collective because he was not a corporate officer by virtue of his
bargaining agreement. OTHER NOTES: (1) The rule position in Matling, albeit high ranking and
is that the nature of an action and subject matter managerial, not being among the positions listed in
thereof, as well as, which court or agency of the Matling’s Constitution and By-Laws. On motion for
government has jurisdiction and the character of the reconsideration, petitioners submitted a certified
reliefs prayed for, whether or not the machine copies of Matling’s Amended Articles of
complainant/plaintiff is entitled to any or all of such Incorporation and By Laws to prove that the President
reliefs. (2) Not every dispute between an employer and of Matling was thereby granted "full power to create
employee involves matters that only the Labor Arbiter new offices and appoint the officers thereto”and the
and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their minutes of special meeting held on June 7, 1999 by
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Actions between Matling’s Board of Directors to prove that the
employers and employees where the employer- respondent was, indeed, a Member of the Board of
employee relationship is merely incidental is within Directors.
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Issue:Whether or not the respondent is a corporate
officer within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
*Matling Industrial v. Coros (Oct 13, 2010) Held: No. As a rule, the illegal dismissal of an
Facts: After respondent Ricardo Coros’ dismissal by officer or other employee of a private employer is
Matling as its Vice President for Finance and properly cognizable by the LA. This is pursuant to
Administration, hefiled on August 10, 2000 a Article 217 (a) 2 of the Labor Code, as amended,
complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal which provides as follows:Article 217. Jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiters and the Commission. –(a) Except as association. Such controversy, among others, is known
otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor as an intra-corporate dispute.
Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by *Television and Production Exponents v. Servana
the parties for decision without extension, even in (January 28, 2008)
the absence of stenographic notes, the following FACTS: TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in
cases involving all workers, whether agricultural the production of television programs, such as the
or non-agricultural: long-running variety program, “Eat Bulaga!”. Its
1. Unfair labor practice cases; president is Antonio P. Tuviera (Tuviera). Respondent
Roberto C. Servaña had served as a security guard,
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement,
those cases that workers may file involving wages, Agro-Commercial Security Agency (ACSA),
rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment;
for TAPE from March 1987 until he was
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations;
terminated on 3 March 2000. In 1995, RPN 9 severed
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 its relations with ACSA. TAPE retained the
of this Code, including questions involving the
legality of strikes and lockouts; and
services of Servaña as a security guard and absorbed
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation,
him. In 2000, TAPE contracted the services of Sun
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits,
Shield Security Agency. It then notified Servaña that
all other claims arising from employer-employee
he is being terminated because he is now a redundant
relations, including those of persons in domestic or
employee. Servaña then filed a case for illegal
household service, involving an amount exceeding
Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaña’s
five thousand pesos (P 5,000.00) regardless of
dismissal is valid on the ground of redundancy but
whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
though he was not illegally dismissed he is still entitled
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate
to be paid a separation pay which is amounting to one
jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor
month pay for every year of service which totals to
Arbiters. (c) Cases arising from the interpretation or
P78,000.00. TAPE appealed and argued that Servaña is
implementation of collective bargaining agreements
not entitled to receive separation pay for he is
and those arising from the interpretation or
considered as a talent and not as a regular employee;
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be
that as such, there is no employee-employer
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the
relationship between TAPE and Servaña. The National
same to the grievance machinery and voluntary
Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of TAPE.
arbitration as may be provided in said
It ruled that Servaña is a program employee. Servaña
agreements.Where the complaint for illegal dismissal
appealed before the Court of Appeals. The Court of
concerns a corporate officer, however, the controversy
Appeals reversed the NLRC and affirmed the LA. The
falls under the jurisdiction of the Securities and
CA further ruled that TAPE and its president Tuviera
Exchange Commission (SEC), because the controversy
should pay for nominal damages amounting to
arises out of intra-corporate or partnership relations
P10,000.00. ISSUE: Whether or not there is an
between and among stockholders, members, or
employee-employer relationship existing between
associates, orbetween any or all of them and the
TAPE and Servaña. HELD: Yes. Servaña is a regular
corporation, partnership, or association of which they
employee. In determining Servaña’s nature of
are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively;
employment, the Supreme Court employed the Four
and between such corporation, partnership, or
Fold Test:
association and the State insofar as the controversy
concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as
such entity; or because the controversy involves the
election or appointment of a director, trustee, officer, 1. Whether or not employer conducted the selection
or manager of such corporation, partnership, or and engagement of the employee. Servaña was
selected and engaged by TAPE when he was absorbed
as a “talent” in 1995. He is not really a talent, as holidays. They were under the control and supervision
termed by TAPE, because he performs an activity of Assistant Station Manager Dante J. Luzon, and
which is necessary and desirable to TAPE’s business News Manager Leo Lastimosa.
and that is being a security guard. Further, the primary
evidence of him being engaged as an employee is his
employee identification card. An identification card is On December 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABS-CBN
usually provided not just as a security measure but to Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective
mainly identify the holder thereof as a bona fide Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to be effective during
employee of the firm who issues it. 2. Whether or not the period from December 11, 1996 to December 11,
there is payment of wages to the employee by the 1999. However, since petitioner refused to recognize
employer. Servaña is definitely receiving a fixed PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were
amount as monthly compensation. He’s receiving not included to the CBA.
P6,000.00 a month. 3. Whether or not employer has
the power to dismiss employee. The Memorandum of
Discontinuance issued to Servaña to notify him that he On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint
is a redundant employee evidenced TAPE’s power to for Recognition of Regular Employment Status,
dismiss Servaña. 4. Whether or not the employer has Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay,
the power of control over the employee. The bundy Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay,
cards which showed that Servaña was required to and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the
report to work at fixed hours of the day manifested the petitioner before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter
fact that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise, directed the parties to submit their respective position
Servaña could have reported at any time during the day paper however they failed to file their position papers
as he may wish. Therefore, Servaña is entitled to within the reglementary period, Labor Arbiter Jose G.
receive a separation pay. On the other hand, the Gutierrez dismissed the complaint without prejudice
Supreme Court ruled that Tuviera, as president of for lack of interest to pursue the case. Respondents
TAPE, should not be held liable for nominal damages received a copy of the Order on May 16, 2001. Instead
as there was no showing he acted in bad faith in of re-filing their complaint with the NLRC within 10
terminating Servaña. Regular Employee Defined: One days from May 16, 2001, they filed, on June 11, 2001,
having been engaged to perform an activity that is an Earnest Motion to Refile Complaint with Motion to
necessary and desirable to a company’s business. Admit Position Paper and Motion to Submit Case for
Resolution. The Labor Arbiter granted this motion in
*ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno (Sept 26, an Order dated June 18, 2001, and forthwith admitted
2006) the position paper of the complainants.

ABS-CBN vs NAZARENO Case Digest ABS-CBN

BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. MARLYN On July 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment
NAZARENO et al. G.R. No. 164156 September 26, in favor of the respondents, and declared that they
2006 Facts: Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting were regular employees of petitioner; as such, they
Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in the were awarded monetary benefits. On appeal to the
broadcasting business and owns a network of NLRC, it ruled that respondents were entitled to the
television and radio stations, whose operations revolve benefits under the CBA because they were regular
around the broadcast, transmission, and relay of employees who contributed to the profits of petitioner
telecommunication signals. It sells and deals in or through their labor. Petitioner thus filed a petition for
otherwise utilizes the airtime it generates from its radio certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before
and television operations. It has a franchise as a the CA, raising both procedural and substantive issues.
broadcasting company, and was likewise issued a CA Affirmed the ruling of the NLRC.
license and authority to operate by the National
Telecommunications Commission. The respondents
Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as Issue: Whether or not the respondents were considered
production assistants (PAs) on different dates were regular employees of ABS-CBN. Ruling: The
employed by the Petitioner, assigned at the news and respondents are regular employees of ABS-CBN. It
public affairs, for various radio programs in the Cebu was held that where a person has rendered at least one
Broadcasting Station, with a monthly compensation of year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity
P4,000. They were issued ABS-CBN employees’ performed, or where the work is continuous or
identification cards and were required to work for a intermittent, the employment is considered regular as
minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and
long as the activity exists, the reason being that a all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the
customary appointment is not indispensable before one safety and decent living of the laborer.”
may be formally declared as having attained regular
status. In Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang,
the Court states that the primary standard, therefore, of *Fulache v. ABS-CBN (Jan. 21, 2010)
determining regular employment is the reasonable FACTS: Petitioners alleged that on December 17,
connection between the particular activity performed 1999, ABS-CBN and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File
by the employee in relation to the usual trade or Employees Union executed a collective bargaining
business of the employer. The test is whether the agreement (CBA) effective December 11, 1999 to
former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual December 10, 2002. When they obtained copies of the
business or trade of the employer. The connection can agreement, they learned that they had been excluded
be determined by considering the nature of work from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered them
performed and its relation to the scheme of the temporary and not regular employees, in violation of
particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the the Labor Code. Petitioners claimed they had already
employee has been performing the job for at least a rendered more than a year of service in the company
year, even if the performance is not continuous and and, therefore, should have been recognized as regular
merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and employees entitled to security of tenure and to the
continuing need for its performance as sufficient privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees.
evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that Petitioners asked that they be paid overtime, night shift
activity to the business. Hence, the employment is differential, holiday, rest day and service incentive
considered regular, but only with respect to such leave pay and they also prayed for an award of moral
activity and while such activity exists. Additionally, damages and attorneys fees. Labor Arbiter Rendoque
respondents cannot be considered as project or rendered his decision holding that the petitioners were
program employees because no evidence was regular employees of ABS-CBN, not independent
presented to show that the duration and scope of the contractors, and are entitled to the benefits and
project were determined or specified at the time of privileges of regular employees. While the appeal
their engagement. In the case at bar, however, the before the NLRC was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed
employer-employee relationship between petitioner Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen (all
and respondents has been proven. In the selection and drivers) for their refusal to sign up contracts of
engagement of respondents, no peculiar or unique employment with service contractor Able Services.
skill, talent or celebrity status was required from them The four drivers and Atinen responded by filing a
because they were merely hired through petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal (illegal dismissal case).
personnel department just like any ordinary employee. In defense, ABS-CBN alleged that even before the
Respondents did not have the power to bargain for labor arbiter rendered his decision of January 17, 2002
huge talent fees, a circumstance negating independent in the regularization case, it had already undertaken a
contractual relationship. Respondents are highly comprehensive review of its existing organizational
dependent on the petitioner for continued work. The structure to address its operational requirements. In
degree of control and supervision exercised by April 21, 2003 decision in the illegal dismissal
petitioner over respondents through its supervisors case,Labor Arbiter Rendoque upheld the validity of
negates the allegation that respondents are independent ABS-CBN's contracting out of certain work or services
contractors. in its operations. The labor arbiter found that
petitioners Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and
Atinen had been dismissed due to redundancy, an
The presumption is that when the work done is an authorized cause under the law.
integral part of the regular business of the employer
and when the worker, relative to the employer, does
not furnish an independent business or professional The NLRC reversed the labor arbiters ruling in the
service, such work is a regular employment of such illegal dismissal case; it found that petitioners Fulache,
employee and not an independent contractor. As Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had been
regular employees, respondents are entitled to the illegally dismissed and awarded them backwages and
benefits granted to all other regular employees of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The petitioners
petitioner under the CBA . Besides, only talent-artists moved for reconsideration, contending that Fulache,
were excluded from the CBA and not production Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad are entitled to
assistants who are regular employees of the reinstatement and full backwages, salary increases and
respondents. Moreover, under Article 1702 of the New other CBA benefits as well as 13th month pay, cash
Civil Code: “In case of doubt, all labor legislation and conversion of sick and vacation leaves, medical and
dental allowances, educational benefits and service LABOR LAW The termination of employment of the
awards. ABS-CBN likewise moved for the four drivers occurred under highly questionable
reconsideration of the decision, reiterating that circumstances and with plain and unadulterated bad
Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad were faith. The records show that the regularization case
independent contractors. The NLRC stood by the was in fact the root of the resulting bad faith as this
ruling that the petitioners were regular employees case gave rise and led to the dismissal case.First, the
entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular regularization case was filed leading to the labor
employees. On the illegal dismissal case, the arbiters decision declaring the petitioners, including
petitioners, while recognized as regular employees, Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad, to be
were declared dismissed due to redundancy. regular employees. ABS-CBN appealed the decision
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, and maintained its position that the petitioners were
contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of independent contractors. In the course of this appeal,
discretion in denying them benefits under the CBA. ABS-CBN took matters into its own hands and
The CA ruled that the petitioners failed to prove their terminated the petitioners services, clearly disregarding
claim to CBA benefits since they never raised the issue its own appeal then pending with the NLRC. Notably,
in the compulsory arbitration proceedings, and did not this appeal posited that the petitioners were not
appeal the labor arbiters decision which was silent on employees. To justify the termination of service, the
their entitlement to CBA benefits. On the illegal company cited redundancy as its authorized cause but
dismissal issue, the CA upheld the NLRC decision offered no justificatory supporting evidence. It merely
holding that Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad claimed that it was contracting out the petitioners
were not illegally dismissed as their separation from activities in the exercise of its management
the service was due to redundancy. The petitioners prerogative. By doing all these, ABS-CBN forgot labor
moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the law and its realities. It forgot that by claiming
motion in a resolution promulgated on July 8, 2008. redundancy as authorized cause for dismissal, it
Hence, the present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not impliedly admitted that the petitioners were regular
petitioners are entitled to CBA benefits Whether or employees whose services, by law, can only be
petitioners were illegally dismissed HELD: LABOR terminated for the just and authorized causes defined
LAW As regular employees, the petitioners fall within under the Labor Code. Likewise ABS-CBN forgot that
the coverage of the bargaining unit and are therefore it had an existing CBA with a union, which agreement
entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and must be respected in any move affecting the security of
contract The LA decision which was affirmed by the tenure of affected employees; otherwise, it ran the risk
NLRC and the CA, finding petitioners to be regular of committing unfair labor practice both a criminal and
employees and not independent contractors. This an administrative offense. It similarly forgot that an
declaration unequivocally settled the petitioners exercise of management prerogative can be valid only
employment status: they are ABS-CBNs regular if it is undertaken in good faith and with no intent to
employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of defeat or circumvent the rights of its employees under
regular employees. These benefits and privileges arise the laws or under valid agreements. Lastly, it forgot
from entitlements under the law (specifically, the that there was a standing labor arbiters decision that,
Labor Code and its related laws), and from their while not yet final because of its own pending appeal,
employment contract as regular ABS-CBN employees, cannot simply be disregarded. By implementing the
part of which is the CBA if they fall within the dismissal action at the time the labor arbiters ruling
coverage of this agreement. Under these terms, the was under review, the company unilaterally negated
petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining the effects of the labor arbiters ruling while at the same
unit because they are regular rank-and-file employees time appealing the same ruling to the NLRC. This
and do not belong to any of the excluded categories. unilateral move is a direct affront to the NLRCs
Specifically, nothing in the records shows that they are authority and an abuse of the appeal process. All these
supervisory or confidential employees; neither are they go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith.
casual nor probationary employees. Most importantly,
the labor arbiters decision of January 17, 2002
affirmed all the way up to the CA level ruled against *Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino (January 26, 2011)
ABS-CBNs submission that they are independent FACTS:
contractors. Thus, as regular rank-and-file employees,
they fall within CBA coverage under the CBAs
express terms and are entitled to its benefits.
Sebolino et al. filed several complaints for illegal
dismissal, regularization, underpayment, nonpayment
of wages and other money claims as well as damages.
They alleged that they had attained regular status as
they were allowed to work with Atlanta for more than
HELD: The petition is unmeritorious.
six (6) months from the start of a purported
apprenticeship agreement between them and the
company. They claimed that they were illegally
dismissed when the apprenticeship agreement expired. LABOR LAW - Illegal dismissals
The CA committed no reversible error in nullifying the
NLRC decision and in affirming the labor arbiters
In defense, Atlanta and Chan argued that the workers ruling, as it applies toCostales, Almoite, Sebolino and
were not entitled to regularization and to their money Sagun. Specifically, the CA correctly ruled that the
claims because they were engaged as apprentices four were illegally dismissed because (1) they were
under a government-approved apprenticeship program. already employees when they were required to
The company offered to hire them as regular undergo apprenticeship and (2) apprenticeship
employees in the event vacancies for regular positions agreements were invalid.
occur in the section of the plant where they had
trained. They also claimed that their names did not
appear in the list of employees (Master List) prior to The following considerations support the CA ruling.
their engagement as apprentices.
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be illegal
with respect to nine out of the twelve complainants. FBased on company operations at the time material to
Atlanta appealed the decision to the NLRC which the case, Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun were
reversed the illegal dismissal decision with respect to already rendering service to the company as employees
Sebolino and three others. They moved for before they were made to undergo apprenticeship. The
reconsideration but this was denied. They then brought company itself recognized the respondents status
the case up to the Court of Appeals, which held that through relevant operational records in the case of
Sebolino and the three others were illegally dismiised. Costales and Almoite, the CPS monthly report for
December 2003 which the NLRC relied upon and, for
Sebolino and Sagun, the production and work schedule
The CA ruled that Sebolino and the three others were for March 7 to 12, 2005 cited by the CA.
already employees of the company before they entered
into the first and second apprenticeship agreements.
For example, Sebolino was employed by Atlanta on The CA correctly recognized the authenticity of the
March 3, 2004 then he entered into his first operational documents, for the failure of Atlanta to
apprenticeship agreement with the company on March raise a challenge against these documents before the
20, 2004 to August 19, 2004. The second labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA itself. The
apprenticeship agreement was from May 28, 2004 to appellate court, thus, found the said documents
October 8, 2004. However, the CA found the sufficientto establish the employment of the
apprenticeship agreements to be void because they respondents before their engagement as apprentices.
were executed in violation of the law and the rules.
The fact that Sebolino and the three others were
Therefore, in the first place, there were no
already rendering service to the company when they
apprenticeship agreements.
were made to undergo apprenticeship (as established
by the evidence) renders the apprenticeship agreements
irrelevant as far as the four are concerned. This reality
Also, the positions occupied by the respondents is highlighted by the CA finding that the respondents
machine operator, extruder operator and scaleman are occupied positions such as machine operator, scaleman
usually necessary and desirable in the manufacture of and extruder operator - tasks that are usually necessary
plastic building materials, the companys main and desirable in Atlantas usual business or trade as
business. Sebolino and the three others were, therefore, manufacturer of plastic building materials. These tasks
regular employees whose dismissals were illegal for and their nature characterized the four as regular
lack of a just or authorized cause and notice. employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.Thus,
when they were dismissed without just or authorized
cause, without notice, and without the opportunity to
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the law.
Sebolino and three others were illegally dismissed.
DENIED.