Title
Supreme Court
Bernarte vs. Philippine Basketball Association
Case
G.R. No. 192084
Decision Date
Sep 14, 2011
Referees Bernarte and Guevarra claimed illegal dismissal by PBA; Supreme Court ruled them independent contractors, upholding non-renewal of contracts as lawful.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192084)

Petitioner

Jose Mel Bernarte was engaged by the PBA to officiate professional basketball games under successive short-term “retainer” contracts and claims illegal dismissal following non-renewal.

Respondents

The PBA, headed by Commissioner Eala and with Martinez as official, contends that Bernarte signed fixed-term contracts as an independent contractor and that non-renewal does not constitute dismissal.

Key Dates

• 23 February–June 2003: First PBA conference (no contract signed by Bernarte).
• 1 July–5 August 2003: One-and-a-half-month contract signed.
• 15 January 2004: Notice of non-renewal.
• 31 March 2005: Labor Arbiter decision for reinstatement and damages.
• 28 January 2008: NLRC affirms Labor Arbiter.
• 17 December 2009: Court of Appeals reverses—finds independent contractor.
• 14 September 2011: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (labor rights, due process).
• Labor Code jurisprudence applying the four-fold employer-employee test: (a) selection/engagement; (b) payment of wages; (c) power of dismissal; (d) control over means and methods (control test as primary).
• Rule 13, Sec. 10, Rules of Court on service by registered mail.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court for petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Bernarte and co-referee Guevarra were invited into the PBA’s referee pool, signing annual or short-term retainer contracts. Contracts stipulated classification, attendance requirements, conduct guidelines, and sanctions for breaches. Non-renewals were communicated as based on performance and contractual discretion.

Procedural History

  1. Labor Arbiter (31 March 2005): Finds employer-employee relationship; orders reinstatement, backwages, moral/exemplary damages, attorney’s fees.
  2. NLRC (28 January 2008): Affirms Labor Arbiter.
  3. Court of Appeals (17 December 2009; 5 April 2010 resolution): Grants certiorari, holds Bernarte an independent contractor; dismisses complaint.
  4. Supreme Court petition for review under Rule 45.

Issue

Whether Bernarte was an employee of the PBA—entitling him to protection against illegal dismissal—or an independent contractor whose contract non-renewal is not dismissal.

Ruling on Service of Process

Bernarte argued the Labor Arbiter’s decision became final for lack of a timely NLRC appeal, citing constructive service via unclaimed registered mail. The Court held he failed to prove actual delivery or receipt of postmaster notices; constructive service was not established. NLRC nonetheless considered the appeal in the interest of substantial justice, rendering the issue moot.

Ruling on Employer-Employee Relationship

Applying the four-fold test:
(a) Selection and engagement – PBA engaged Bernarte under fixed-term contracts.
(b) Payment of wages – PBA paid a retainer fee exclusive of allowances.
(c) Power of dismissal – PBA could terminate for contractual breach.
(d) Control over means and methods –

...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.