Title
Supreme Court
Begino vs. ABS-CBN Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 199166
Decision Date
Apr 20, 2015
Petitioners, hired as cameramen/reporters via talent contracts, claimed regular employment with ABS-CBN. SC ruled they were regular employees, citing control, necessity of work, and repeated rehiring, rejecting independent contractor claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199166)

Nature of Engagement and Contractual Terms

Petitioners were engaged under Talent Contracts regularly renewed over the years, with terms varying from three months to one year. They received Project Assignment Forms detailing project duration, budget, and technical requirements. Their work involved coverage of news stories aired on TV Patrol Bicol. The contracts expressly provided that no employer-employee relationship was created, and petitioners were paid talent fees subjected to contractor’s tax, calculated per airing day. The Talent Contracts included provisions on compliance with ABS-CBN’s professional standards and guidelines, exclusivity obligations preventing work for competitors without consent, and characterization of work as results-oriented without fixed working hours.

Petitioners’ Claims

Petitioners alleged they were regular employees based on their performance of functions essential to ABS-CBN’s business. They claimed direct control and supervision by Villafuerte, required wearing company IDs, completing daily assignments known in advance, and adherence to company policies on attendance and punctuality under threat of termination. They were subjected to annual competency assessments and dealt with emergency situations at all hours. Despite these responsibilities, petitioners asserted they were denied labor benefits available to regular employees and were paid significantly less than ABS-CBN’s regular rank-and-file employees. Petitioners contended the use of Talent Contracts was a mere device to circumvent regularization and proper compensation.

Respondents’ Position

ABS-CBN maintained that it is principally a broadcasting corporation that occasionally engages independent contractors referred to as "talents," including actors, directors, reporters, and technical staff. Petitioners were classified as talents hired for specific programs or projects on a results-based compensation tied to budgets, without regular employment status. Respondents argued they exercised only minimal control limited to general guidelines and standards but not over the means and methods of petitioners’ work. Petitioners were considered experts requiring no additional training and were not employees but independent contractors rendering professional services.

Proceedings Below and Labor Arbiter’s Decision

Petitioners initially filed complaints before the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch alleging regularization, unpaid benefits, and damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them regular employees due to the nature of their work being essential to the business, the exclusivity clauses, and the control exercised by respondents. The decision ordered payment of accrued benefits and restoration of petitioners to their previous employment status.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Ruling

The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, reiterating that respondents’ control was evident from contractual exclusivity and prohibitions restricting petitioners’ engagements with other entities. The NLRC upheld the finding that petitioners were regular employees despite the appellation as talents.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal

Respondents filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the NLRC rulings. The CA reasoned that:

  • Petitioners were engaged under Talent Contracts specifying project-based work and budget-based fees.
  • The compensation arrangement negated fixed salaries typical of employer-employee relationships.
  • Control was limited to compliance with company and industry standards and did not extend to dictating the manner and means of work performance.
  • Exclusivity clauses and prohibitions did not necessarily establish an employment relationship as they could also pertain to independent contractors.
    The CA denied petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Issues on Appeal before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the CA erred in denying dismissal of respondents’ Rule 65 petition for certiorari despite procedural irregularities at the NLRC level.
  2. Whether the CA erred in rejecting the established facts and labor tribunal findings affirming the employer-employee relationship.

Applicable Law and Legal Standards

The Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the fundamental basis, emphasizing the state policy to protect labor. The decisive law was Article 280 of the Labor Code, classifying employment types based on the nature of work and relationship with the employer:

  • Regular Employees: Engaged in activities usual in the employer’s business.
  • Project Employees: Engaged for a specific project with a fixed term.
  • Casual Employees: Those not falling under regular or project categories but who have rendered at least one year of service are deemed regular for the activity performed.

The four-fold test and particularly the control test constitute the primary criteria for establishing employer-employee relationships:
(a) Selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) Payment of wages;
(c) Power to dismiss; and
(d) Employer’s control over the means and methods of work performance.

The control test is the most critical, focusing on whether the employer controls not just the outcome but the manner of work.

Supreme Court’s Findings and Rulings

The Supreme Court found merit in petitioners’ appeal, emphasizing:

  • The nomenclature of "Talent Contracts" cannot override substantive realities under labor law and the Constitution’s protective policy for labor.
  • Petitioners performed functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s core business of broadcasting.
  • The continuous re-hiring of petitioners over many years for a regularly aired program demonstrated regular employment despite term-limited contracts.
  • Labor jurisprudence prohibits the use of successive fixed-term contracts merely to evade security of tenure and labor benefits.
  • The exclusivity clauses, equipment provision, detailed instructions on assignment, and adherence to schedules and company policies evidenced actual control extending beyond mere result control to the means of accomplishment.
  • The Court distinguished this case from Sonza v. ABS-CBN (involving a famous broadcast personality
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms