CASE NO. 1
CASE TITLE: Navarro VS. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. et. al.
G.R. NO.: 162583
Doctrine:
Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to the payment of full back
wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him.
Facts:
Petitioner was an employee of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (Coca-Cola)
for more than a decade. He worked as a forklift operator for Coca-cola from November 1, 1987
to February 27, 1998.
Respondent has an existing Employer’s Code of Disciplinary Rules and regulations
providing penalty for a 10th AWOP / AWOL. Petitioner did not report to work due to heavy rains
which flooded their area. He was then required to explain in writing within 24 hours why no
disciplinary action should be imposed on him for his tenth absence without permission.
Immediately after, he filed an application for leave. He was required by the respondent to explain
in writing why no disciplinary action should be imposed on him. He submitted a written
explanation accompanied with a Certification from their Barangay Chairman stating that his
absence was due to heavy rains and subsequent flooding that hit his barangay.
Despite his compliance, he was given a Notice of Termination. Petitioner filed a complaint
of illegal dismissal which was dismissed for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the
decision by the Labor Arbiter.
Respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate
Complainant Navarro to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
and to pay his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. Respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. is likewise ordered to pay Complainant
Navarro attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of his total monetary award.
Respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals annulled the
resolution of the NLRC.
Issues:
Whether or not the leave of absence filed by the petitioner be allowed by the company.
Rulings:
Yes, the leave of absence filed by the petitioner shall be allowed by the company. His
absence was due to a fortuitous event outside of petitioner's control. Petitioner had no wrongful,
perverse or even negligent attitude, intended to defy the order of his employer when he absented
himself. He did so because heavy rains flooded their residential area which was along the
railroad. In his favor, the Barangay Captain certified that indeed there was flooding in their place
of residence.
It is unreasonable to expect a worker to plan ahead for emergencies or sick days. Therefore,
it would be irrational to demand advance warning of such periods. Only after the incident has taken
place may he give the required notice, which is what the petitioner did in this instance.
CASE NO. 2
CASE TITLE: G & M Philippines Inc. vs. Cuambot
G.R. NO.: 162308
Doctrine:
The rule is that all doubts in the implementation and the interpretation of the Labor Code
shall be resolved in favor of labor, in order to give effect to the policy of the State to “afford
protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex,
race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers,” and to “assure the rights
of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane
conditions of work.”
Facts:
Romil V. Cuambot was an overseas worker who was deployed to Saudi Arabia to work as
a car body builder in Al Waha Workshop in Unaizah City, by petitioner G & M Philippines, a duly
licensed placement and recruitment agency.
Respondent did not finish his contract and returned to the Philippines barely six months
later. He then filed a complaint in the NLRC against his recruitment agency, herein petitioner, for
unpaid wages, withheld salaries, refund of plane ticket and repatriation bond, later amended to
include illegal dismissal, claim for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, actual,
exemplary and moral damages, and attorney’s fees.
Respondent narrated that he began working for Mohd Al Motairi, the President and
General Manager of the Al Waha Workshop, on January 8, 1995. Along with his Filipino coworkers, he was subjected to inhuman and unbearable working conditions suc as overtime work
daily, serious insult by respondent Muthiri everytime he asked or demanded for his salary and
complainant's letters that were sent by his family were not given by respondent and/or his staff.
When the respondent requested Motairi for his salary, he said that because the agency had
been given a significant amount of money for his hiring and deployment, he wouldn't get paid until
the money had been recouped. He was also informed that, in contrast to the SAR1200 that had
been guaranteed to him in the contract, his monthly wage was just 800 Saudi Riyals (SAR). The
next time he claimed his pay, Motairi threatened to send him home.
Due to his family's incessant letters asking for financial support, however, respondent
mustered the courage to again demand for his salaries during the second week of July 1996. True
to his word, Motairi ordered him to pack up and leave. He was able to purchase his plane ticket
only through the contributions of his fellow Filipinos. Motairi even accompanied him to the airport
when he bought his plane ticket.
Petitioner, in defense, presented copies of 7 payslips issued in favor of Cuambot. Petitioner
asserted that since respondent only worked for a little over seven months and did not finish his
contract, he should pay the cost of the plane ticket. It pointed out that according to the standard
employment contract, the employer would provide the employee with a free plane ticket for the
flight home only if the worker finishes his contract.
Cuambot countered that his signatures in the payslips were forged and further claims that
he never got his salaries except only for the SAR100 as monthly allowance. G&M answered back
by saying that there was great possibility that Cuambot had changed his signature while abroad so
that he could file a complaint or illegal dismissal upon his return.
To counter the allegation of forgery, petitioner claimed that there was a great possibility
that respondent had changed his signature while abroad so that he could file a complaint for illegal
dismissal upon his return. The argument that the stroke and handwriting on the payslip was written
by one and the same person is mere conjecture, as respondent could have requested someone, i.e.,
the cashier, to prepare the resignation letter for him. While it is the employer who fills up the pay
slip, respondent could have asked another employee to prepare the resignation letter, particularly
if he (respondent) did not know how to phrase it himself. Moreover, it could not be presumed that
the payslip and resignation letter were prepared by one and the same person, as respondent is not
a handwriting expert.
Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera ruled in favor of respondent
Issues:
Whether or not the respondent’s signatures are mere forgeries.
Rulings:
After examination of the evidence on record, the petition must fail. The petitioner’s
attempts at establishing its case are not enough to convince the court of the veracity of its claims.
Amongst other things, the petitioner failed to submit the original copies of the pay slips and the
resignation letter to prove that they were actually penned by respondent, they failed to submit an
original copy of the employment contract to prove that they had actually given a copy of such to
respondent for him to sign, and a cursory look at the resignation letter and the handwritten payslips
show that they were written by one person. Indeed, the rule is that all doubts in the implementation
and the interpretation of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of labor, in order to give effect
to the policy of the State to “afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal
work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and
employers,” and to “assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. It is a well-settled doctrine, that if
doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of
justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between
a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of
agreements and writing should be resolved in the former’s favor.
The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the
benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give
maximum aid and protection of labor.
Moreover, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. The reason for the rule is
that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents –
which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other claims of workers
have been paid – are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of
the employer. Thus, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been
discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who pleads
payment has the burden of proving it. Only when the debtor introduces evidence that the obligation
has been extinguished does the burden shift to the creditor, who is then under a duty of producing
evidence to show why payment does not extinguish the obligation In this case, petitioner was
unable to present ample evidence to prove its claim that respondent had received all his salaries
and benefits in full. Petition denied for lack of merit.
CASE NO. 3
CASE TITLE: Angelica Francisco vs. NLRC, Kasei Corp. et. al.
G.R. NO.: 170087
Doctrine:
Two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with
respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying
economic realities of the activity or relationship. This two-tiered test would provide us with a
framework of analysis, which would take into consideration the totality of circumstances
surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties. This is especially appropriate
in this case where there is no written agreement or terms of reference to base the relationship on;
and due to the complexity of the relationship based on the various positions and responsibilities
given to the worker over the period of the latter’s employment.
Facts:
Petitioner, Angelica Francisco, was employed by Kasei Corporation in 1995 when it was
still a startup. She was assigned to take care of all the company's accounting requirements and was
given the positions of Accountant and Corporate Secretary. In order to get business licenses,
building permits, and other permissions for the company's initial operation, she was also chosen
as Liaison Officer to the City of Makati.
Despite being named corporate secretary, she was not given access to the company's
documentation and was not required to attend any board meetings. She didn't prepare any legal
documents and didn't act as the corporation's corporate secretary. Petitioner was appointed Acting
Manager in 1996. The petitioner was tasked with handling all employee hiring and management
administration tasks, representing the business in interactions with government bodies, particularly
the BIR, SSS, and Makati's city government, as well as managing all other aspects of the Kasei
Restaurant's operation, which is owned and run by Kasei Corporation.
For five years, petitioner performed the duties of Acting Manager. In January 2001, a
certain Liza R. Fuentes took over as Manager in place of the petitioner. Because the company was
allegedly not making enough money, Kasei Corporation allegedly decreased her income and failed
to pay her mid-year bonus. The petitioner did not receive her wage from the business in October
2001. She followed up with the company cashier several times, but she was told that business
wasn't doing well. She eventually received word that her relationship with the corporation had
ended.
Petitioner did not report to work because she was no longer receiving salary, therefore she
filed a claim for constructive dismissal with the labor arbitrator. Private respondents claimed that
the petitioner is not a Kasei Corporation employee. They claimed that the petitioner was hired in
1995 to serve as both the company's corporate secretary and one of its technical advisers on
accounting issues. As a technical consultant, the petitioner worked independently of Kasei
Corporation and under her own direction. Petitioner claimed that she did not keep a daily time log,
that she was free to visit the office whenever she pleased, and that the nature of her temporary
services depended on the demands of the organization.
The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was illegally dismissed, NLRC affirmed with
modification the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. On appeal, CA reversed the NLRC decision.
CA denied petitioner’s MR, hence, the present recourse.
Issues:
1. Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
private respondent Kasei Corporation.
2. Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed.
Rulings:
1. The so-called "right of control test," which states that the person for whom the services are
performed retains the right to control both the end to be attained and the methods to achieve
it, has typically been utilized by courts. In addition to the right-of-control test, the parties'
current economic circumstances, such as the inclusion of the employee on payrolls, can be
used to determine if an employer-employee relationship exists.
There are instances when, aside from the employer’s power to control the
employee, economic realities of the employment relations help provide a comprehensive
analysis of the true classification of the individual, whether as employee, independent
contractor, corporate officer or some other capacity.
It is better, therefore, to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the employer’s power
to control; and (2) the economic realities of the activity or relationship. The control test
means that there is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the
manner and means used to achieve that end.
By applying the control test, it can be said that petitioner is an employee of Kasei
Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the
corporation’s Technical Consultant. She reported for work regularly and served in various
capacities as Accountant, Liaison Officer, Technical Consultant, Acting Manager and
Corporate Secretary, with substantially the same job functions, that is, rendering
accounting and tax services to the company and performing functions necessary and
desirable for the proper operation of the corporation such as securing business permits and
other licenses over an indefinite period of engagement. Respondent corporation had the
power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished.
Under the economic reality test, the petitioner can also be said to be an employee
of respondent corporation because she had served the company for 6 yrs. before her
dismissal, receiving check vouchers indicating her salaries/wages, benefits, 13th month
pay, bonuses and allowances, as well as deductions and Social Security contributions from.
When petitioner was designated General Manager, respondent corporation made a report
to the SSS. Petitioner’s membership in the SSS evinces the existence of an employeremployee relationship between petitioner and respondent corporation. The coverage of
Social Security Law is predicated on the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
2. The corporation constructively dismissed petitioner when it reduced her. This amounts to
an illegal termination of employment, where the petitioner is entitled to full back wages.
A diminution of pay is prejudicial to the employee and amounts to constructive
dismissal. Constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resulting in cessation of
work resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an
employee. Petition is GRANTED.
CASE NO. 4
CASE TITLE: Great Pacific Life Insurance Corporation vs. Judico
G.R. NO.: 73887
Doctrine:
Test to determine the employer-employee relationship. The test therefore is whether the
"employer" controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of
the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.
Facts:
Honorato Judico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Grepalife, a duly organized
insurance firm, before the NLRC Regional Arbitration.
Judico is a debit agent of GREPALIFE . A debit agent is an insurance agent
selling/servicing industrial life plans and policy holders. Industrial life plans are those whose
premiums are payable either daily, weekly or monthly and which are collectible by the debit agents
at the home or any place designated by the policy holder". Judico had definite work assignments
including but not limited to collection of premiums from policy holders and selling insurance to
prospective clients.
Judico was initially paid P 200. 00 as allowance for thirteen (13) weeks regardless of
production and later a certain percentage denominated as sales reserve of his total collections but
not lesser than P 200.00. He was even promoted to the position of Zone Supervisor and was given
additional (supervisor's) allowance fixed at P110.00 per week. For unknown reasons he was
reverted to his former position as debit agent and not paid so-called weekly sales reserve.
Finally he was dismissed by way of termination of his agency contract. Petitioner argues
that Judico's compensation was not based on any fixed number of hours he was required to devote
to the service of petitioner company but rather it was the production or result of his efforts or his
work that was being compensated and that the so-called allowance for the first thirteen weeks that
Judico worked as debit agent, cannot be construed as salary but as a subsidy or a way of assistance
for transportation and meal expenses of a new debit agent during the initial period of his training
which was fixed for thirteen (13) weeks. Stated otherwise, petitioner contends that Judico's
compensation, in the form of commissions and bonuses, was based on actual production,
(insurance plans sold and premium collections).
Both parties appealed to the NLRC when a decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter
dismissing the complaint on the ground that the employer-employee relations did not exist between
the parties but ordered Grepalife to pay complainant the sum of Pl,000.00 by reason of Christian
Charity. On appeal, said decision was reversed by the NLRC ruling that complainant is a regular
employee as defined under Art. 281 of the Labor Code and declaring the appeal of Grepalife
questioning the legality of the payment of Pl,000.00 to complainant moot and academic.
Issues:
Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and
private Respondent.
Rulings:
Yes, there exists an employer-employee relation between Grepalife and Judico because the
element of control by the former on the latter was present.
The test to determine whether employer-employee relationship exists is when the
“employee” was controlled by the “employer” not only as to the kind of work, the amount of
results, the kind of performance, but also the power of dismissal.
In this case, Judico received a definite minimum amount per week as his wage known as
“sales reserve”. He was assigned a definite place in the office to work on when he is not in the
field, was burdened with the job of collection, was required to make regular reports to the
company, and for which an anemic performance would mean a dismissal. Undoubtedly, by nature
of his position and work, Judico had been a regular employee of Grepalife, and is therefore entitled
to the protection of the law and could not just be terminated without valid and justifiable cause.
CASE NO. 5
CASE TITLE: Gregorio V. Tongko vs. The Manufacturers Life. Insurance Co. (Phils.) Inc. and
Renato A. Vergel De Dios
G.R. NO.: 167622
Doctrine:
In an agency relationship, the principal is allowed to have an element of control over his
agent without intruding to the labor law concept of control for purpose of employment.
Facts:
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. (Manulife) is a domestic corporation
engaged in life insurance business. Gregorio V. Tongko started his professional relationship with
Manulife on July 1, 1977 by virtue of a Career Agent's Agreement (Agreement) he executed with
Manulife. In the Agreement, it is provided that: It is understood and agreed that the Agent is an
independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted as creating
an employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Agent. The Company may
terminate this Agreement for any breach or violation of any of the provisions hereof by the Agent
by giving written notice to the Agent within fifteen (15) days from the time of the discovery of the
breach. No waiver, extinguishment, abandonment, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to
terminate this Agreement by the Company shall be construed for any previous failure to exercise
its right under any provision of this Agreement.
In 1983, Tongko was named as a Unit Manager in Manulife's Sales Agency Organization.In
1990, he became a Branch Manager. As the CA found, Tongko's gross earnings from his work at
Manulife, consisting of commissions, persistency income, and management overrides. The
problem started sometime in 2001, when Manulife instituted manpower development programs in
the regional sales management level. Relative thereto, De Dios addressed a letter dated November
6, 2001 to Tongko regarding an October 18, 2001 Metro North Sales Managers Meeting. Stating
that Tongko’s Region was the lowest performer (on a per Manager basis) in terms of recruiting in
2000 and, as of today, continues to remain one of the laggards in this area.
Other issues were: "Some Managers are unhappy with their earnings and would want to
revert to the position of agents." And "Sales Managers are doing what the company asks them to
do but, in the process, they earn less." Tongko was then terminated. Therefrom, Tongko filed a
Complaint dated November 25, 2002 with the NLRC against Manulife for illegal dismissal in the
Complaint. In a Decision dated April 15, 2004, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of
an employer-employee relationship. The NLRC's First Division, while finding an employeremployee relationship between Manulife and Tongko applying the four-fold test, held Manulife
liable for illegal dismissal. Thus, Manulife filed an appeal with the CA. Thereafter, the CA issued
the assailed Decision dated March 29, 2005, finding the absence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties and deeming the NLRC with no jurisdiction over the case.
Issues:
Whether or not Tongko was an employee of Manulife.
Rulings:
Yes. In the instant case, Manulife had the power of control over Tongko that would make
him its employee. Several factors contribute to this conclusion. In the Agreement dated July 1,
1977 executed between Tongko and Manulife, it is provided that: The Agent hereby agrees to
comply with all regulations and requirements of the Company as herein provided as well as
maintain a standard of knowledge and competency in the sale of the Company's products which
satisfies those set by the Company and sufficiently meets the volume of new business required of
Production Club membership. Under this provision, an agent of Manulife must comply with three
(3) requirements: (1) compliance with the regulations and requirements of the company; (2)
maintenance of a level of knowledge of the company's products that is satisfactory to the company;
and (3) compliance with a quota of new businesses. Among the company regulations of Manulife
are the different codes of conduct such as the Agent Code of Conduct, Manulife Financial Code
of Conduct, and Manulife Financial Code of Conduct Agreement, which demonstrate the power
of control exercised by the company over Tongko. The fact that Tongko was obliged to obey and
comply with the codes of conduct was not disowned by respondents. Thus, with the company
regulations and requirements alone, the fact that Tongko was an employee of Manulife may
already be established. Certainly, these requirements controlled the means and methods by which
Tongko was to achieve the company's goals.
More importantly, Manulife's evidence establishes the fact that Tongko was tasked to
perform administrative duties that establishes his employment with Manulife. Additionally, it must
be pointed out that the fact that Tongko was tasked with recruiting a certain number of agents, in
addition to his other administrative functions, leads to no other conclusion that he was an employee
of Manulife.
CASE NO. 6
CASE TITLE: Sonza vs. ABS-CBN
G.R. NO.: 138051
Doctrine:
The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee
from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over
a worker.
Facts:
ABS-CBN signed an Agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC). Referred to in the Agreement as "AGENT," MJMDC agreed to provide
Sonza’s services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television in May 1994.
Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN’s President, Eugenio Lopez III, regarding his decision
to irrevocably resign in view of recent events concerning his programs and career. In the letter, he
stated that he is waiving and renouncing recovery of the remaining amount stipulated the
Agreement but reserves the right to seek recovery of the other benefits under said Agreement.
On 30 April 1996, Sonza filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the Department of
Labor and Employment, National Capital Region in Quezon City. Sonza complained that ABSCBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing
bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Plan ("ESOP").
ABS-CBN, on the other hand, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no employeremployee relationship existed between the parties. It insisted that Sonza is an independent
contractor.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Sonza’s complaint. It ratiocinated that whatever benefits
Sonza enjoyed arose from the Agreement between him and ABS-CBN and not by reason of
employer-employee relationship. NLRC and CA sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Issues:
Whether or not there is an existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Rulings:
There is no employer-employee relationship. Sonza maintains that all essential elements of
an employer-employee relationship are present in this case. Case law has consistently held that the
elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to
control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last
element, the so-called "control test", is the most important element.
Applying the control test to the present case, it is found that Sonza is not an employee but
an independent contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in
distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of
control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer
exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well –
the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent
contractor.
Independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or
talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and hiring of
Sonza, because of his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary
employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual
relationship. If Sonza did not possess such unique skills, talent and celebrity status, ABS-CBN
would not have entered into the Agreement with Sonza but would have hired him through its
personnel department just like any other employee.
CASE NO. 7
CASE TITLE: Thelma Dumpit-Morillo vs. CA
G.R. NO.: 164652
Doctrine:
Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds of employees, namely: (1)
those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service,
whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.30 In other
words, regular status arises from either the nature of work of the employee or the duration of his
employment.
Facts:
Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was hired by ABC as a newscaster in 1995. Her contract with the
TV station was repeatedly renewed until 1999. She then wrote Jose Javier (VP for News and Public
Affairs of ABC) advising him of her intention to renew the contract. Javier did not respond.
Dumpit then demanded reinstatement as well as her backwages, service incentive leave
pays and other monetary benefits.
ABC said they could only pay her backwages but her other claims had no basis as she was
not entitled thereto because she is considered as a talent and not a regular employee.
Dumpit sued ABC. The Labor Arbiter ruled against Dumpit. The National Labor Relations
Commission reversed the LA. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and ruled that as per the
contract between ABC and Dumpit, Dumpit is a fixed term employee.
Issues:
Whether or not the continuous renewal of petitioner’s talent contracts constitute regularity
in the employment status.
Rulings:
Yes. An employer-employee relationship was created when the private respondents started
to merely renew the contracts repeatedly 15 times for 4 consecutive years.
Petitioner was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice of having
fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and
compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a
regular employment status.
The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: a.) The
selection and engagement of the employee; b.) The payment of wages; c.) The power of dismissal;
and d.) The employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of the work to
be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.
The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had
control over the work or petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work assignments
and payment of petitioner’s wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All these being present,
clearly there existed an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC.
Concerning regular employment, the law provides for 2 kinds of employees, namely: 1.)
Those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; and 2.) Those who have rendered at least one year of service,
whether continuous or broken with respect to the activity in which they are employed. In other
words, regular status arises from either the nature of work of the employee or the duration of his
employment.
The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee vis-a-vis the usual trade or business of
the employer. This connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed
and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. If the employee has
been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely
intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence
of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business.