DUMPIT MURILLO VS. CA AND ABC control over the work of the Petitioner.
Aside
FACTS:
Thelma Dumpit Murillo was employed as
a newscaster and a co-anchor for Balitan-balita
by the Associated Broadcasting Company on
October 2, 1995. The contract was for a period
of three months. On September 30, 1999, after
four years of repeated renewals, Petitioner’s
talent contract expired. No contract was again
enteredinto by the parties to the previous
contract. The petitioners then wrote a letter
demanding her reinstatement to her former
position, payment of backwages and services.
On December 30, 1999, petitioner filed a case
against ABC for illegal constructive dismissal.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of ABC. The
NLRC however reversed the decision and ruled
that an employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and respondent and that
the petitioner was a regular employee illegally
dismissed. When the case reached the Court of
Appeals, the latter decided that Petitioner
should not be allowed to renege from the
stipulations she had voluntarily and knowingly
executed by invoking the security of tenure of
the Labor Code, hence this appeal.
ISSUE: WON an employee-employer
relationship existed between ABC and
Petitioner and was she illegally dismissed.
HELD:
The CA committed reversible error when it
held that petitioner was a fixed term employee.
Petitioner was a regular employee under
contemplation of law. The practice of having
fixed term contracts in the industry does not
automatically make all talent contracts valid
and compliant with labor law.
In Manila Water Company vs. Pena, the
elements to determine the existence of an
employer employee relationship are: (a) the
selection and engagement of the employee (b)
the payment of wages, (c) the power of
dismissal, (d) the employers power to control.
The duties of the Petitioner as enumerated in
her employment contract indicate that ABC had
from control, ABC also dictated the work
assignments and payment of Petitioner’s wages.
ABC also had the power to dismiss her. All these
being present, clearly there existed an
employer-employee relationship between
Petitioner and ABC.
Concerning regular employment, the Law
provides for two kinds of employees. (1) those
engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable to the usual business or
trade of the employer, (2) those who have
rendered at least one year of service, whether
continuous broken.
The Petitioner’s work was necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer which includes its participation in the
Government’s news and public information
dissemination. In addition, her work was
continuous for four years. Her contract was
renewed for over 15 times. This repetitive
renewal was indicative of Petitioner’s work’s
desirability and necessity. Hence it is concluded
that she is a regular employee.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS BENAMIRA
FACTS:
The individual respondents are licenced
security guards formerly employed by Peoples
Security Incorporated and deployed in the
premises of MERALCO. On November 30,1990,
the security service agreement between PSI and
MERALCO was terminated. Immediately
thereafter the fifty six security guards filed a
complaint for monetary benefits. On December
1,1990, MERALCO and Armed Security and
Detective Agency’s contract took effect and the
respondents were absorbed. Again on July 25,
1992, a new contract was entered into by
Meralco with Advance Forces Security and
Investigation Services.
In their complaint, the individual
respondents alleged that: MERALCO and ASDAI
never paid their overtime pay, service incentive
leave pay, premium pay for Sundays and
Holidays, P50.00 monthly uniform allowance
and underpaid their 13th month pay; on July 24,
1992, when the security service agreement of
ASDAI was terminated and AFSISI took over the
security functions of the former on July 25,
1992, respondent security guard Benamira was
no longer given any work assignment when
AFSISI learned that the former has a pending
case against PSI, in effect, dismissing him from
the service without just cause; and, the rest of
the individual respondents were absorbed by
AFSISI but were not given any assignments,
thereby dismissing them from the service
without just cause.
ASDAI denied the allegations in general
terms while MERALCO denied any liability
claiming that there was no employee-employer
relationship between the respondents and
MERALCO as the former are employees of the
security agencies.
ISSUE: WON respondents are employees of
MERALCO who are illegally dismissed.
HELD:
Applying the four-fold test, the
respondents cannot pass as regular employees
of MERALCO. First, it is the security agency
which selects its security guards or employs the
respondents, next, it is the agency which pays
their wages and not the establishment which
they are assigned. It is also the agency which
furnishes the guards with training, arms and
ammunitions and other equipment. In other
words, it is the security agency which controls
the respondents actions. The establishment to
where the guards are also assigned do not have
the power to dismiss them. Given the foregoing,
it is concluded that MERALCO is not the
employer of the respondents.
However, regarding the civil liability to be
paid to the Respondents, MERALCO is
considered an principal employer of the
respondents. When ASDAI as contractor failed
to pay the individual respondents, MERALCO as
principal becomes jointly and severally liable for
the individual respondents’ wages, under
Articles 106 and 109 of the Labor Code, which
provide:
ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. -
Whenever an employer enters into a contract
with another person for the performance of the
former[‘s] work, the employees of the
contractor and of the latter[‘s] subcontractor, if
any, shall be paid in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
In the event that the contractor or
subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his
employees in accordance with this Code, the
employer shall be jointly and severally liable
with his contractor or subcontractor to such
employees to the extent of the work performed
under the contract, in the same manner and
extent that he is liable to employees directly
employed by him. xxx
ART. 109. Solidary liability - The provisions of
existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding,
every employer or indirect employer shall be
held responsible with his contractor or
subcontractor for any violation of any provision
of this Code. For purpose of determining the
extent of their civil liability under this Chapter,
they shall be considered as direct employers.
ASDAI is held liable by virtue of its status as
direct employer, while MERALCO is deemed the
indirect employer of the individual respondents
for the purpose of paying their wages in the
event of failure of ASDAI to pay them. This
statutory scheme gives the workers the
ample protection.