Case Summary (G.R. No. 235315)
Petitioners
Henry T. Paragele, Roland Elly C. Jaso, Julie B. Aparente, Roderico S. Abad, Milandro B. Zafe Jr., Richard P. Bernardo, Joseph C. Agus, Romerald S. Taruc, Zernan Bautista, Arnold Motita, Jeffrey Canaria, Rommel F. Bulic, Henry N. Ching, Nomer C. Orozco, Jameson M. Fajilan, Jay Albert E. Torres, Rodel P. Galero, Carl Lawrence Jasa Nario, Romeo Sanchez Mangali III, Francisco Rosales Jr., Bonicarl Penaflorida Usaraga, Joven P. Licon, Noriel Barcita Sy, Gonzalo Manabat Bawar, David Adonis S. Ventura, Solomon Pico Sarte, Jony F. Liboon, Jonathan Peralta Anito, Jerome T. Torralba, and Jayzon Marsan.
Respondent
GMA Network, Inc., a major broadcasting company in the Philippines, which engaged petitioners on a per-taping, “pinch-hitter” or freelance basis.
Key Dates
• Engagement of petitioners: 2000–2011 (varied by individual)
• Dismissal (cessation of engagement): May 2013
• Labor Arbiter Decision (dismissal of complaint): December 16, 2014
• NLRC Decision (recognition of employment relationship; only one regularized): March 28, 2014
• CA Decision (denial of petition under Rule 65): March 3, 2017; Resolution denying reconsideration: October 26, 2017
• SC Decision (Rule 45 review): July 13, 2020
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article XVI, Section 3 (security of tenure)
• Labor Code of the Philippines, Articles 294 (security of tenure), 295 (regular and casual employment), 297–299 (authorized causes for termination), 279 (prohibited activities)
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 45 and 65 (scope of review)
Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship
Under the four-fold test borrowed from jurisprudence (Begino v. ABS-CBN), an employer-employee relationship requires: (a) selection and engagement; (b) payment of wages; (c) power to dismiss; and (d) control over means and methods of work (the “control test”). Petitioners demonstrated that GMA directly engaged and compensated them, impliedly exercised the power to “disengage” (dismiss), and retained supervision over their work schedules, required site attendance, provided equipment, assigned supervisors, and enforced company rules. These facts support the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Rejection of Independent Contractor Characterization
GMA’s characterization of petitioners as independent contractors fails because petitioners did not possess “unique skills or talents” that justified freedom from supervision, nor did GMA limit itself to control over outputs only. The remuneration (P750–P1,500 per taping) and GMA’s continuous oversight negate the hallmarks of independent contractor status as defined in Chavez v. NLRC and Fuji Television v. Espiritu.
Classification as Regular Employees
Article 295 of the Labor Code deems employment “regular” when the work performed is “necessary or desirable” to the employer’s usual business, regardless of project or seasonal exceptions. Petitioners, as camera operators, performed functions indispensable to GMA’s broadcasting operations. The one-year service requirement applies only to “casual” employees performing non-essential tasks. Because petitioners rendered necessary services, they attained regular status from engagement without needing twelve months’ service. They cannot be reclassified as project employees, for there was no identifiable, time-bound “project” distinct from GMA’s ordinary broadcasting business (GMA Network v. Pabriga).
Invalidity of Fixed-Term Contracts
GMA’s assertion that David Adonis S. Ventura was a fixed-term employee under a “Talent Agreement” is unavailing. Under Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora and subsequent cases, fixed-term contracts are permissible only where the employee’s specialized bargaining position and equal footing negate abuses. Petitioners, including Ventura, lacked such bargain
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235315)
Facts and Background
- Thirty-one petitioners were engaged by GMA Network, Inc. as camera operators or assistant camera operators on a per-taping basis.
- Their per-taping “service fees” ranged from ₱750.00 to ₱1,500.00.
- Dates of engagement spanned from as early as 2000 to as late as 2011; all were dismissed in May 2013.
- Petitioners claim they rendered continuous services to GMA and thus attained regular-employee status, while GMA maintained they were merely “pinch-hitters” or freelancers engaged only when additional manpower was needed.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed a consolidated Complaint for regularization, later converted into a Complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, and regularization.
- Labor Arbiter: Dismissed complaint for lack of an employer-employee relationship (December 16, 2014).
- NLRC: Recognized an employer-employee relationship but held only one co-complainant (Lazaro) to be regular for having served over one year (March 28, 2014 Decision; May 21, 2014 Resolution denying reconsideration).
- Court of Appeals: Dismissed petition for certiorari under Rule 65, affirmed NLRC’s Decision and Resolution, ruled petitioners were not regular employees as they served aggregate periods of less than one year each (March 3, 2017 Decision; October 26, 2017 Resolution denying motion for reconsideration).
- Supreme Court: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
- Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and GMA Network, Inc.
- Assuming such relationship, whether petitioners attained regular-employee status.
- Assuming regular employment, whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Supreme Court Ruling
- The petition is GRANTED.
- The March 3, 2017 Decision and Oc