1) Television and Production Exponents v. Servaña, January 28, 2008
FACTS: SG Servaña was terminated due to redundancy by TAPE, Inc. with its president Mr. Tuviera.
TAPE, Inc. alleged that there is no Em-Rel between them and Servaña because the latter was a
“talent”. Being a “talent” means that the hiring party or “employer” has no control over the said
“talent” on how she/he will conduct her/his work.
ISSUE: W/N there exist an employee-employer relationship between the petitioners and the
respondent
HELD: The SC through J. Tinga declared that Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the
factors to be considered in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship,
namely: (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 with respect to the
means and method by which the work is to be accomplished. The most important factor involves
the control test. Under the control test, 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.
2) ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno, Sept. 26, 2006
FACTS: Respondents were Personal Assistants assigned in different programs in ABS-CBN. They
filed a case before the Labor Arbiter praying that they be declared as regular employees and
therefore be entitled to the benefits given to these regular employees of ABS-CBN. The LA ruled
in their favor and imposed penalty to petitioner, ABS-CBN. The admin case was brought up to the
NLRC. NLRC also ruled in favor of the respondents but the decision was modified wherein the
respondents are entitled to the benefits enjoyed under the CBA. In the appellate court, it
dismissed the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65 and its MR was also denied. The
petitioners now filed before SC the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N the respondents have Em-Rel with the petitioners and if so, w/n they’re entitled to
the benefits stated in CBA for regular employees
HELD: The SC through J. Callejo, Sr. declared that we reject, as barren of factual basis, petitioner's
contention that respondents are considered as its talents, hence, not regular employees of the
broadcasting company. Petitioner's claim that the functions performed by the respondents are
not at all necessary, desirable, or even vital to its trade or business is belied by the evidence on
record. We agree with respondents' contention that where a person has rendered at least one
year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed, or where the work is continuous
or intermittent, the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists, the reason
being that a customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as
having attained regular status. In determining whether an employment should be considered
regular or non-regular, the applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees under the law: (1) those engaged to perform
activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2)
those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activities in which they are employed. It is the character of the
activities performed in relation to the particular trade or business taking into account all the
circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of it performance and its continued existence.
It is obvious that one year after they were employed by petitioner, respondents became regular
employees by operation of law.
3) Fulache v. ABS-CBN, January 21, 2010
FACTS: Petitioners were workers of ABS-CBN. Respondent ABS-CBN and the ABS-CBN Rank-andFile Employees Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to which the said
petitioners were excluded as ABS-CBN treated them as temporary and not regular employees.
Working for ABS-CBN for more than a year already, the petitioners filed a case before the Labor
Arbiter (LA) praying that they’d be declared as regular employees and be entitled to all the
benefits therewith. The LA ruled in their favor and that they, as regular employees, were entitled
to all the benefits provided for. Meanwhile, ABS-CBN allegedly dismissed the petitioners illegally
due to their refusal to sign a contract of employment under the contractor Able Services.
Furthermore, ABS-CBN stated that the authorized cause of their dismissal was redundancy. For
the illegal dismissal case, the LA ruled that petitioners were not illegally dismissed by ABS-CBN.
Both the regularization case and illegal dismissal case were appealed to the NLRC. Initially, the
NLRC affirmed the regularization case and reversed the illegal dismissal case. Both parties filed
their respective Motion for Reconsiderations. These were resolved by the LA by reinstating the
LA’s very decision. In the appellate court, the CA resolved the issue of w/n the petitioners were
entitled to the benefits associated with the CBA in the negative. Case was then brought before
the SC for the final judgement.
ISSUE: w/n the petitioners, as regular employees, are members of the bargaining unit entitled to
CBA benefits
HELD: The SC through J. Brion declared that to further clarify what we stated above, CBA coverage
is not only a question of fact, but of law and contract. The factual issue is whether the petitioners
are regular rank-and-file employees of ABS CBN. The tribunals below uniformly answered this
question in the affirmative. From this factual finding flows legal effects touching on the terms and
conditions of the petitioners' regular employment. This was what the labor arbiter meant when
he stated in his decision that "henceforth they are entitled to the benefits and privileges attached
to regular status of their employment." Significantly, ABS-CBN itself posited before this Court that
"the Court of Appeals did not gravely err nor gravely abuse its discretion when it affirmed the
resolution of the NLRC dated March 24, 2006 reinstating and adopting in toto the decision of the
Labor Arbiter dated January 17, 2002 . . . . "This representation alone fully resolves all the
objections — procedural or otherwise — ABS-CBN raised on the regularization issue.
4) Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals, June 8, 2007
FACTS: Petitioner was a worker working for the respondents ABC. The petitioner’s contract was
for three (3) months only but it was extended to a couple of years through the renewal of the said
contract. After four (4) years of continuous renewal, her contract finally expired. She wrote a
letter to the respondent ABC stating her intention that she’s still interested with working for them
subject to a salary increase. She then just stopped working. Petitioner sent another letter as she
did not receive any response from the respondent ABC regarding the first letter she sent.
Afterwards, petitioner send a demand letter. Respondent ABC responded that they already
prepared a check for the petitioner’s talent fees but the other monetary claims she stated in her
prior letters were not part of it as ABC found no basis for the same. At this point, petitioner filed
a case against respondent ABC before the LA to which the LA dismissed the petitioner’s very
decision. On appeal to the NLRC, it reversed the dismissal of the LA and stated that there is EmRel between the petitioner and respondents, that petitioner was a regular employee who is
entitled to reinstatement and back wages on top of the other monetary compensation petitioner
mentioned priorly. The case was brought up to the appellate court in which the appellate court
ruled that NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion and reversed NLRC’s decision. Eventually,
the case was elevated before the SC to finally decide on it.
ISSUE: W/N there is an Em-Rel between the petitioner and the respondents ABC, Jose Javier and
Edward Tan
HELD: The SC through J. Quisumbing declared that 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. In the case at
bar, ABC had control over the performance of petitioner's work. In Manila Water Company, Inc.
v. Pena, we said that 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 power to control. The most important element is 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. All these being present, clearly, there
existed an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC. In our view, the requisites for
regularity of employment have been met in the instant case.
5) Fuji Television v. Espiritu, December 3, 2014
FACTS: Respondent was hired by the petitioner on a fixed-term contract. The said contract was
renewed for a couple of times. Meanwhile, respondent was diagnosed with lung cancer.
Respondent told the news to the petitioners and in return, petitioners dismissed the respondent
stating that respondent can no longer perform work due to chemotherapy and despite the fit to
work certificate provided by respondent’s physician. A case was filed against herein petitioners
before the LA. The LA ruled that respondent was not an employee of the petitioner but was an
independent contractor. On appeal to the NLRC, it reversed the ruling of the LA and awarded her
back wages. Both parties filed their respective petitions for certiorari before the appellate court.
The CA affirmed the finding of the NLRC and modified the damages to be received by the
respondent. Aggrieved, herein petitioners filed the petition for review on certiorari before the SC
to finally resolve the same.
ISSUE: W/N there is an Em-Rel between the petitioner and the respondents and W/N the
respondent was a regular employee
HELD: The SC through J. Leonen declared that the four-fold test can be used in determining
whether an employer employee relationship exists. The elements of the four-fold test are the
following: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the
power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control, which is the most important element. Fuji had
the power to dismiss Arlene, as provided for in paragraph 5 of her professional employment
contract. Her contract also indicated that Fuji had control over her work because she was required
to work for eight (8) hours from Monday to Friday, although on flexible time. Sonza was not
required to work for eight (8) hours, while Dumpit-Murillo had to be in ABC to do both on-air and
off-air tasks. The test for determining regular employment is whether there is a reasonable
connection between the employee's activities and the usual business of the employer. Article 280
provides that the nature of work must be "necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer" as the test for determining regular employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the finding of the National Labor Relations Commission that the successive renewals of Arlene's
contract indicated the necessity and desirability of her work in the usual course of Fuji's business.
Because of this, Arlene had become a regular employee with the right to security of tenure.
Further, an employee can be a regular employee with a fixed-term contract. The law does not
preclude the possibility that a regular employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract for valid
reasons. This was recognized in Brent: For as long as it was the employee who requested, or
bargained, that the contract have a "definite date of termination," or that the fixed-term contract
be freely entered into by the employer and the employee, then the validity of the fixed-term
contract will be upheld.
6) Begino v. ABS-CBN, April 20, 2015
FACTS: Petitioners were engaged with respondents through Talent Contracts. Stated in their
respective TC were guidelines regarding their work for the respondents as well as a provision
therein that despite said guidelines there were no Em-Rel between petitioners and respondents.
In addition, their respective TCs were subject to time-fixed ranging from 3 months to 1 year. Also,
these were renewed for a certain span of time. Claiming that they were regular employees of the
respondent ABS-CBN, petitioners filed a case before the LA. The LA ruled that they were indeed
regular employees and therefore Em-Rel exists between them and the respondents. It even
pointed out that the exclusivity clause and prohibition were in placed in the TC to mean control,
control over the petitioners. Respondents appealed the decision before the NLRC. The NLRC
affirmed the decision of the LA. Still not satisfied, respondents filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the appellate court. The CA reversed the findings of the NLRC and LA. The CA
stated that there was no Em-Rel between respondents and petitioners. Petitioners then sought
the relief before the SC by filing to them the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N there is an Em-Rel between the petitioner and the respondents
HELD: The SC through J. Perez declared that to determine the existence of said relation,
case law has consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit: (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. Of these
criteria, the so-called "control test" is generally regarded as the most crucial and determinative
indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. 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 achieve the same. The Court finds that, notwithstanding the nomenclature of their
Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the terms and condition embodied
therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN. This conclusion is borne out by the
ineluctable showing that petitioners perform functions necessary and essential to the business of
ABS-CBN which repeatedly employed them for a long-running news program of its Regional
Network Group in Naga City. In the course of said employment, petitioners were provided the
equipment they needed, were required to comply with the Company's policies which entailed
prior approval and evaluation of their performance. Viewed from the prism of these
considerations, we find and so hold that the CA reversibly erred when it overturned the NLRC's
affirmance of the Labor Arbiter's finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between
the parties.
7) Sonza v. ABS-CBN, June 10, 2004
FACTS: Respondent ABS-CBN hired the service of petitioner Jay Sonza to co-host a news program
being aired at the former’s station. Petitioner resigned from the respondent’s company as
evidenced by a letter petitioner’s agent wrote addressed to the respondent’s president. Petitioner
then filed a case against respondent before DOLE stating that the latter did not pay his
compensation and other benefits. Petitioner contends that he was an employee of respondent
ABS-CBN and thus entitled to the benefits accompanying said employment status. LA dismissed
the petition for lack of jurisdiction because there was no Em-Rel present between the parties.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC in which the NLRC just affirmed the LA’s decision.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a special civil action of Certiorari before the CA. The appellate court
dismissed the said petition affirming the decision of both the LA and the NLRC. The CA found no
existing Em-Rel between petitioner and respondent. No Em-Rel means that LA and NLRC had no
jurisdiction over the case. It must be filed as a normal civil case. Since there’s no jurisdiction,
there’s nothing to review in the appellate court. Thus, the CA cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
case. Not satisfied, the petitioner filed the instant case before the SC for resolution.
ISSUE: W/N there is an Em-Rel between the petitioner and the respondents
HELD: The SC through J. Carpio declared that 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. 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. All the talent fees and benefits paid to
SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If SONZA were ABS-CBN's
employee, there would be no need for the parties to stipulate on benefits such as "SSS, Medicare,
. . . and 13th month pay" which the law automatically incorporates into every employer-employee
contract. Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and not because of an employeremployee relationship. The power to bargain talent fees way above the salary scales of ordinary
employees is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual
relationship. During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA's talent fees as long
as "AGENT and Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this
Agreement." Even if it suffered severe business losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench SONZA
because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay SONZA's talent fees during the life of the Agreement.
This circumstance indicates an independent contractual relationship between SONZA and
ABSCBN. Applying the control test to the present case, we find 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. Clearly, ABS-CBN's right not to broadcast SONZA's show, burdened as it was by the
obligation to continue paying in full SONZA's talent fees, did not
amount to control over the means and methods of the performance of SONZA's work. ABS-CBN
could not terminate or discipline SONZA even if the means and methods of performance of his
work — how he delivered his lines and appeared on television — did not meet ABS-CBN's
approval. This proves that ABS-CBN's control was limited only to the result of SONZA's work,
whether to broadcast the final product or not. In either case, ABS-CBN must still pay SONZA's
talent fees in full until the expiry of the Agreement. The right of labor to security of tenure as
guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if there is an employer-employee relationship under
labor laws. Not every performance of services for a fee creates an employer-employee
relationship. To hold that every person who renders services to another for a fee is an employee
— to give meaning to the security of tenure clause — will lead to absurd results.
8) Bernarte v. PBA, September 14, 2011
FACTS: Petitioner was hired as a referee by the respondent PBA. His contract was valid for a
certain period indicated therein. Eventually, the said contract expired. Claiming that petitioner
was an employee of the respondent PBA, the former filed a case against the latter before a LA.
The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner stating that indeed petitioner was an employee of the
respondent and therefore the “dismissal” was illegal in nature. On appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC
affirmed the decision rendered by the LA. Aggrieved, respondents filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the CA. The CA overturned the decisions of both the LA and the NLRC. They
stated that there was no Em-Rel between the parties because petitioner was considered as an
independent contractor which in turn meant that the respondents had no control over the
former. Herein petitioner then filed a case for petition for certiorari before the SC assailing the
decision made by the appellate court.
ISSUE: W/N there is an Em-Rel between the petitioner and the respondents
HELD: The SC through J. Carpio declared that the existence of an employer-employee relationship
is 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 there are conflicting findings
of fact between the Court of Appeals, on one hand, and the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, on the other,
such as in the present case. To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
case law has consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit: (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 socalled "control test" is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an employeremployee relationship. In Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, which determined the
relationship between a television and radio station and one of its talents, the Court held that not
all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of
the former. The very nature of petitioner's job of officiating a professional basketball game
undoubtedly calls for freedom of control by respondents. In addition, the fact that PBA repeatedly
hired petitioner does not by itself prove that petitioner is an employee of the former. For a hired
party to be considered an employee, the hiring party must have control over the means and
methods by which the hired party is to perform his work, which is absent in this case. The
continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies the renewal of the contract between PBA
and petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services rendered by petitioner warranting such
contract renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioner's services at the end of the
term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or violation of the terms and
conditions of the contract, or for whatever other reason, the same merely results in the nonrenewal of the contract, as in the present case. The non-renewal of the contract between the
parties does not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by respondents.