Title
Tiangco vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 200434
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2021
Talent newscaster Carmela Tiangco, engaged by ABS-CBN, alleged illegal suspension and dismissal after appearing in a prohibited commercial. Courts ruled her an independent contractor, not an employee, affirming partial settlement but denying full monetary claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200434)

Key Dates

– July 22, 1986: Initial engagement as exclusive Talent Newscaster (TV Patrol)
– March 1, 1994–April 30, 1997: Three-year “Agreement” through MJMDC
– December 1995: Alleged commercial appearance in Tide advertisement
– January 16, 1996: Three-month suspension without pay
– March 11, 1996: Labor complaint filed for illegal suspension and constructive dismissal
– April 29, 1999: Labor Arbiter decision awarding salaries, separation pay, damages, attorney’s fees
– July 31, 2006: NLRC reverses for lack of jurisdiction (treating petitioner as independent contractor)
– January 27, 2012: Court of Appeals approves Partial Settlement Agreement, deems remaining issues moot
– December 6, 2021: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Labor Code; Rule 45, Rules of Court (Petition for Review on Certiorari); Civil Code Article 2028 (compromise agreements); A.M. No. 04-3-15-SC (Mediation at the CA)

Procedural Background

Petitioner, engaged under successive exclusive-talent contracts, was suspended for appearing in a prohibited commercial. She filed for illegal suspension, constructive dismissal, and various monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter granted full relief. ABS-CBN appealed to the NLRC, which, relying on the Sonza v. ABS-CBN ruling (2004), held it lacked jurisdiction because petitioner was an independent contractor. The CA later approved a Partial Settlement Agreement covering some monetary claims and declared the rest moot. Petitioner’s Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court challenges (1) the finality of the settlement as to all monetary claims and (2) her classification as an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Issue One: Final Settlement of Monetary Claims

Petitioner contends that her claims for separation pay, moral damages, and attorney’s fees were not included in the Partial Settlement Agreement. The Agreement expressly covered only suspension-period salaries, 13th-month pay, travel allowance, ESOP refund, and signing bonus. Petitioner had raised separation pay (₱4,170,000.00), moral damages (₱3,000,000.00), and attorney’s fees (10%) before the CA. The Court agrees these were not settled but nonetheless refrains from ordering them because resolution depends on her employment status.

Issue Two: Employment Status Determination

The core question is whether petitioner was an ABS-CBN employee or an independent contractor. Classification is primarily a factual inquiry subject to Rule 45 review only when labor tribunals and the CA conflict. The Supreme Court may review facts in labor cases under those circumstances, which exist here.

Legal Standard: Employee vs. Independent Contractor

Four-fold test elements:

  1. Selection and engagement
  2. Payment of wages (or fees)
  3. Power of dismissal
  4. Employer’s control over means and methods (the “control test,” most important)

An independent contractor performs services under his/her own methods and responsibility, free from principal’s control except as to results.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Status

  1. Unique Skills and Bargaining Power
    – Petitioner was repeatedly selected for her distinctive talents, personality, and celebrity status, characteristic of independent contractors.
    – Her talent fees (up to ₱417,000.00 monthly plus ₱500,000.00 stock bonus) reflect significant bargaining power unlike ordinary employees.

  2. Payment Arrangements
    – Although paid through ABS-CBN’s payroll with tax withholding, this convenience does not establish employment.

  3. Discipline and Termination
    – ABS-CBN had no contractual right to suspend petitioner; suspension conflicted with the 1994 Agreement’s sole remedy of termination for breach.
    – Either party could rescind or terminate only for breach; ABS-CBN could not unilaterally impose disciplinary leaves under labor-law retrenchment rules.

  4. Control Over Work
    – ABS-CBN did not direct how petitioner read news or co-hosted programs, except to set result-oriented guidelines (e.g., program format, broadcast ethics).



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.