Title
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Tajanlangit
Case
G.R. No. 219508
Decision Date
Sep 14, 2021
ABS-CBN cameramen, hired repeatedly for years, deemed regular employees by SC due to control, necessity, and integral role in broadcasting operations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219508)

Petitioner

ABS‑CBN’s position: Historically engages independent talents and technical personnel per project because program lifespans are uncertain; uses an Internal Job Market (IJM) accreditation/database to source accredited technical/creative manpower; contends respondents were independent contractors or “talents” engaged per project, not regular employees.

Respondents

Respondents’ position: Employed as cameramen from 2003–2005 until 2010; included in ABS‑CBN’s IJM; issued ABS‑CBN IDs; paid hourly wages deposited to payroll accounts with statutory deductions; assigned schedules by management; supervised by production staff; subject to discipline; therefore regular employees entitled to regularization, and later claimed illegal dismissal and monetary relief after exclusion from assignments when they refused to sign proposed contracts.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Labor Arbiter decision dismissing respondents’ complaint: March 30, 2011. NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter by Resolution: August 24, 2011; Motion for Reconsideration denied: October 28, 2011. Court of Appeals granted Rule 65 petition, reversed NLRC, and ordered reinstatement and awards: September 18, 2014; CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration: June 18, 2015. Petition for Review under Rule 45 filed to the Supreme Court; Supreme Court decision affirming CA: September 14, 2021.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitutional basis applied: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date 2021 triggers use of the 1987 Constitution). Procedural rules invoked: Rule 65 (petition for certiorari) and Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari). Substantive labor law framework: Labor Code principles on employer-employee relationship, Article 280 concept of regular employment, and the established four‑fold test (selection/engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over conduct) to determine employment status; jurisprudence cited includes Sonza v. ABS‑CBN, ABS‑CBN v. Nazareno, Begino, Del Rosario, and related authorities as applied by the courts below.

Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

ABS‑CBN maintains a practice of engaging talents and technical personnel per project and operates the IJM database to accredit and source such manpower; accreditation is non‑exclusive and training is voluntary. Respondents allege continuous engagement as cameramen from 2003–2005 onward, inclusion in IJM, issuance of company IDs, regular receipt of wages (hourly, deposited bi‑monthly), statutory deductions (withholding tax, SSS, Pag‑IBIG, PhilHealth), scheduled assignments issued by management, supervision by production supervisors, imposition of memoranda and disciplinary actions, and eventual exclusion from premises and assignments after refusing to sign contractual offers presented post‑complaint filing.

Evidence Presented by Parties

Respondents submitted ABS‑CBN ID photocopies, Income Tax Returns, payslips and machine copies of payroll, memoranda to similarly situated employees, SSS/PhilHealth/Pag‑IBIG documents, and posted work schedules. Petitioner submitted corporate documents (Articles of Incorporation, legislative franchise), payslips, and unsigned draft employment contracts; affidavits by other workers were produced belatedly.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Findings

Labor Arbiter (March 30, 2011): Dismissed respondents’ complaint for lack of employer‑employee relationship, finding respondents were independent contractors free from company control. NLRC Second Division (Resolution August 24, 2011; Motion for Reconsideration denied October 28, 2011): Affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that respondents were independent contractors because the element of control was not present.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Orders

Court of Appeals (September 18, 2014): Granted respondents’ Rule 65 petition, found grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC for disregarding material evidence, applied the four‑fold test (following ABS‑CBN v. Nazareno and other precedents), concluded respondents were regular employees, declared their dismissal illegal, ordered immediate reinstatement without loss of seniority, payment of full backwages and all statutory monetary benefits from dismissal to actual reinstatement, and awarded attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award; CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (June 18, 2015).

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC’s finding that no employer‑employee relationship existed between ABS‑CBN and the respondents, i.e., whether the CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion and established the existence of an employer‑employee relationship.

Standard of Review Applied by the Supreme Court

On a Rule 45 petition challenging a CA ruling rendered in a Rule 65 certiorari proceeding, the Supreme Court’s review is generally limited to questions of law; factual findings are not to be re‑examined unless they are unsupported by any evidence or rest on a gross misapprehension of facts. Grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC is shown when findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, disregard material evidence, contradict the Labor Arbiter, or where reversal is necessary to prevent substantial wrong and do substantial justice.

Supreme Court Holding

The petition for review under Rule 45 was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution, holding that respondents proved by substantial evidence that an employer‑employee relationship existed with ABS‑CBN, that the NLRC abused its discretion in disregarding substantial evidence, and that the CA correctly applied the four‑fold test and pertinent precedents to reach its conclusions.

Reasoning: Substantial Evidence and Grave Abuse

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that respondents submitted overwhelming and material evidence (IDs, ITRs, payslips showing withholding, SSS/PhilHealth/Pag‑IBIG records, work schedules, memoranda) demonstrating regular employment; petitioner failed to present contemporaneous signed contracts evidencing an independent contractor relationship for the period 2003–2010 and relied mainly on unsigned draft contracts and belated affidavits, which were insufficient to rebut respondents’ evidence. Under these circumstances, the NLRC’s ruling was held to be a grave abuse of discretion for disregarding decisive evidence.

Reasoning: Application of the Four‑Fold Test

The Court applied the four‑fold test and found each element satisfied in favor of respondents:

  • Selection and engagement: Respondents were hired through ABS‑CBN’s personnel process as Junior Cameramen and did not possess unique celebrity or bargaining status akin to “talents” in Sonza.
  • Payment of wages: Payslips and ITRs showed direct wage payments by ABS‑CBN on an hourly basis with statutory deductions, and respondents lacked power to negotiate talent fees.
  • Power of dismissal: ABS‑CBN exercised disciplinary measures toward similarly situated workers, controlled access to premises and assignments, and respondents were materially dependent on ABS‑CBN for continued work.
  • Power of control/supervision: ABS‑CBN supervised respondents through production supervisors, executive producers, and program directors; provided tools, equipment, and premises; and dictated assignments and schedules, indicating control over means and methods.

Based on these factual findings, the Court concluded an employer‑employee relationship existed.

Reasoning: Precedent Analysis (Sonza, Nazareno, Del Rosario, Begino)

The Court distinguished Sonza v. ABS‑CBN (talent with unique bargaining power and artistic autonomy) as factually inapposite because respondents lacked celebrity status, independent bargaining, guaranteed talent fees, and autonomy in work methods or schedule. The Court relied on ABS‑CBN v. Nazareno and recent rulings such as Del Rosario and Begino, which upheld that cameramen and similar technical personnel may be regular employees when the four‑fold test is satisfied and their work is indispensable to the broadcaster’s business. The Court also explained that minute resolutions or decisions in different cases (e.g., Jalog) are not binding precedent on different parties and factual matrices.

IJM Work Pool and Regularization Analysis

The Court addressed ABS‑CBN’s IJM work pool argument and held that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms