c

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL FOURTEENTH DIVISION

GMA NETWORK, INC. and/or CA-G.R. SP NO. 144572

ATTY. FELIPE L. GOZON,
Petitioners, Members:

-versus - LOPEZ, M.V., Chairperson

GALAPATE-LAGUILLES, Z.T., and
CHRISTIAN BOCHEE *ROBENIOL, G.T. , JJ
.
CABALUNA, ET AL.,1
NATIONAL LABOR Promulgated:
RELATIONS COMMISSION –
SIXTH DIVISION AND LABOR 20 FEBRUARY 2019
ARBITER RODERICO Q.
ALMEYDA,
Respondents.

1
Christian Bochee Cabaluna, Chloe Ben, Lora Queñano, Christine Aban, Elmer Cabarles, Jr., Eugene
Lalaan, Mariet Cabral, Mary Rose Castro, James Arce, Eleazar Del Rosario, Philip Vincent Franco Sinco,
Jayson Bernard Santos, Rosalee Timbad, Madeleine Zaide, Jobelyn Bonifacio, Nyorly Gail Montero,
Jennifer Basijan, Dandy Alandy, Anthony Macarayan, Simon Efraim Borromeo, Annalyn San Pedro,
Jose Del Rosario III, Michael Manalaysay, Aubrey Dela Cruz, Ronelie Siervo, Gemmalyn Masanga,
Rachelle Castillo, Fernanne Gulapa, Kristoffer James Dalusing, Rosanne Bernadette Chua, Allan
Gregory Lazaro, Fearlly Loureen Tan, Antonio Chua, Ivy Suzette Gucilatar, Socille Fuentes, Denice
Mendiola, Archibald Formales, Marco Marcelo, Jeffrey Osoc, Axl Joffline Malonzo, Marishen Lyle
Maluan, Marie Adelle Banta, Remanuel Bandiola, Dawnavie Dadis, Catherine Ann Marpuri, Emmanuel
Escalona Jr., Meliza Gallian, Mariza Barral, Anne Pamela Fernandez, Sharon Rose Masula, John Michael
Cristobal, Rouel Raymundo, Annabelle Gabuna, Carmina Giezelle Mones, Zara Jane Misuela, Maria
Crezelie Cruz, Jerome Avanzado, Mariel Daguman, Arla Fabella, Lian Nami Aloen Buan, Edmalynne
Remillano, Stephen Patricio, Megan Luna, Ruby Rose Olermo, Jerica May Herga, John Gary Criel
Candelaria, Samuel Austria, Anne Rose Gamboa, Dennis Lasala, Shera Teves, Elaine Mariel Magboo,
Michael Del Rosario, Dawn Jeffanie Vie Po Quimque, Irene Matta, Maria Ana Isabel Rodrigo, Chissa
Cajigal, Julianne Rose Marquez, Rochelle Ann Marcelo, Richelle Ramirez, Jan Erik Miras, Marie Odessa
Pacheco, Jiecel Ramirez, Neri Alden Carangalan, Alfredo Enoce, Jr., Maria Veronica Guingon, Leonardo
Leonor, Bryan Kristoffer Brazil, Winchelle Ochoa, Regit Adrian Antonio, Harvey Henryan Bayona, Jan
Meynard Nualla, Lea Paz Torre, Serafin Camdido Gozon, Igal Jade San Andres, Rayla Marie Castillo,
and Mark Anthony Norella.

They are hereinafter collectively known as the “private respondents”.

*
Acting Junior Member, per Office Order No. 49-19-RFB dated February 14, 2019.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 2 of 19
DECISION

DECISION
GALAPATE-LAGUILLES, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Certiorari2 are the September

30, 2015 Decision3 and January 5, 2016 Resolution4 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Special Fourth
Division in NLRC-LAC No. 07-001956-15 that affirmed with
modification the June 22, 2015 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter
(LA) in NLRC NCR Case No. 06-06683-14 declaring that the
private respondents are regular employees of petitioner GMA
Network Inc.

The facts are of record.

Petitioner GMA Network Inc. (GMA) is a broadcasting

corporation with television programming consisting of news,
public affairs, fictional, variety and talk shows, and reality
programs, among others.6

Private repondents7 were engaged by petitioner GMA on

various dates as talents assigned to different programs and
were paid talent fees under a series of Talent Agreements8 with
fixed period, though regularly renewed, to wit:

Name Position Date Hired Salary

Christian Bochee Edit Supervisor/ June 2006 Php84,000.00
Cabaluna, Segment Producer/
Researcher

2
Rollo, pp. 3-81.
3
Id. at 91-129.
4
Id. at 130-134.
5
Id. at 135-152.
6
Examples of petitioner GMA's television programs: Imbestigador; Kapuso Mo Jessica Soho; Reporter's
Notebook; AHA; Realtime; I Juander; Wagas; Brigada; Tonight with Arnold Clavio; Tunay na Buhay;
SONA; News to Go; QRT; Balita Pilipinas Ngayon; Motorcycle Diaries; Power House; Sumbungan ng
Bayan; Unang Hirit; Front Row; Good News; and Born to be Wild.
7
There are only 96 private respondents herein out of the 142 original complainant since the others
withdrew their complaint or resigned from service.
8
Rollo, pp. 267-688.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 3 of 19
DECISION

Chloe Ben, Head SNB January 2002 Php37,000.00

Imbestigador
Lora Queñano, Segment Producer January 2007 Php36,000.00
Christine Aban, Action Center May 2010 Php19,000.00
Coordinator
Elmer Cabarles, Action Center May 2010 Php19,000.00
Jr., Coordinator
Eugene Lalaan, Segment Producer June 2007 Php32,000.00
Mariet Cabral, Segment Producer August 2005 Php39,000. 00
Mary Rose Castro, Segment Producer May 2011 Php21,000.00
James Arce, Cameraman January 2003 Php37,000.00
Eleazar Del Executive Producer April 2008 Php40,000.00
Rosario,
Philip Vincent Segment Producer June 2009 Php28,000.00
Franco Sinco,
Jayson Bernard Executive Producer April 2006 Php78,000.00
Santos,
Rosalee Timbad, Team Head June 2007 Php25,000.00
Madeleine Zaide, Associate Producer March 2002 Php42,000.00
Jobelyn Bonifacio, Program July 2012 Php12,000.00
Researcher
Nhorly Gail Program June 2013 Php12,000.00
Montero Researcher
Jennifer Basijan, Segment Producer 2014 Php26, 000.00
Dandy Alandy Head Writer July 2007 Php60,000.00
Anthony Researcher March 2011 Php16,000.00
Macarayan,
Simon Efraim Head Writer June 2005 Php39,000.00
Borromeo,
Annalyn San Production October 2011 Php35,000.00
Pedro, Assistant
Jose Del Rosario Graphic Artist May 2012 Php16,000.00
III,
Michael Associate Producer December Php46,000.00
Manalaysay, 2002
Aubrey Dela Cruz, Segment Producer May 2005 Php36,000.00
Ronelie Sieno, Segment Producer August 2012 Php21,000.00
Gemmalyn Segment Producer April 2010 Php24,000.00
Masanga,
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 4 of 19
DECISION

Rachelle Castillo, Researcher April 2013 Php14,000.00

Fernanne Gulapa, Researcher October 2013 Php14,000.00
Kristoffer James Segment Producer April 2006 Php40,000.00
Dalusing,
Rosanne Segment Producer August 2007 Php40,000.00
Bernadette Chua,
Allan Gregory Segment Producer July 2008 Php40,000.00
Lazaro,
Fearlly Loureen Transcriber May 2009 Php28,000.00
Tan,
Antonio Chua, Segment Producer February 2008 Php40,000.00
Ivy Suzette Segment Producer June 2009 Php40,000.00
Gucilatar,
Socille Fuentes, Segment Producer January 2011 Php40,000.00
Denice Mendiola, Production January 2011 Php20,000.00
Assistant
Archibald Segment Producer July 2009 Php21,000.00
Formales,
Marco Marcelo, Segment Producer February 2011 Php21,000.00
Jeffrey Osoc, Segment Producer November Php22,000.00
2006
Axl Joffline Program August 2013 Php13,000.00
Malonzo, Researcher
Marishen Lyle Writer/ Associate December Php40,222.00
Maluan, Producer 2008
Marie Adelle Writer/Producer November Php31,000.00
Banta, 2009
Remanuel Associate Producer August 2007 Php40,000.00
Bandiola,
Dawnavie Dadis, Segment Producer July 2012 Php33,000.00
Catherine Ann Edit Supervisor May 2010 Php31,888.00
Marpuri,
Emmanuel Editor/Playback May 2012 Php33,000.00
Escalona Jr.,
Meliza Gallian, Program April 2011 Php12,000.00
Researcher
Mariza Barral, Researcher/ April 2005 Php40,000.00
Production
Coordinator
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 5 of 19
DECISION

Anne Pamela Segment Producer June 2011 Php20,000.00

Fernandez,
Sharon Rose Supervising July 2003 Php40,000.00
Masula, Producer
John Michael Researcher July 2010 Php14,000.00
Cristobal,
Rouel Raymundo, Segment Producer May 2009 Php20,000.00
Annabelle Gabuna, Production May 2007 Php15,000.00
Coordinator
Carmina Giezelle Segment Producer September Php20,000.00
Mones, 2011
Zara Jane Misuela, Production June 2010 Php35,000.00
Assistant
Maria Crezelie Production August 2011 Php18,000.00
Cruz, Assistant
Jerome Avanzado, Segment Producer January 2011 Php21,000.00
Mariel Daguman, Segment Producer January 2012 Php20,000.00
Arla Fabella, Executive Producer September Php50,000.00
2005
Lian Nami Aloen Segment Producer November Php40,000.00
Buan, 2010
Edmalynne Writer/Producer Php26,000.00
Remillano,
Stephen Patricio, Executive Producer December Php60,000.00
2005
Megan Luna, Segment Producer April 2012 Php32,000.00
Ruby Rose Olermo, Production October 2010 Php30,000.00
Assistant
Jerica May Herga, Research August 2012 Php14,000.00
John Gary Criel Segment Producer August 2009 Php46,000.00
Candelaria,
Samuel Austria, Graphic Designer January 2011 Php18,000.00
Anne Rose Writer/Producer April 2010 Php31,000.00
Gamboa
Dennis Lasala, Production April 2000 Php30,000.00
Coordinator
Shera Teves, Segment Producer August 2010 Php21,000.00
Elaine Mariel Segment Producer August 2010 Php21,000.00
Magboo,
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 6 of 19
DECISION

Michael Del Executive Producer July 2005 Php66,000.00

Rosario,
Dawn Jeffanie Vie Researcher May 2013 Php14,000.00
Po Quimque,
Irene Matta, Program April 2004 Php14,000.00
Researcher
Maria Ana Isabel Segment Producer August 2008 Php22,222.22
Rodrigo,
Chissa Cajigal, Program November Php28,000.00
Researcher 2008
Assistant
Julianne Rose Program January 2012 Php25,000.00
Marquez, Researcher
Rochelle Ann Segment Producer/ May 2011 Php32,000.00
Marcelo, Program
Researcher
Richelle Ramirez, Segment Producer November Php78,000.00
2003
Jan Erik Miras, Program September Php16,000.00
Researcher 2012
Marie Odessa Production April 2010 Php20,000.00
Pacheco, Designer
Jiecel Ramirez, Program April 2013 Php14,000.00
Researcher
Neri Alden Segment Producer July 2010 Php21,000.00
Carangalan,
Alfredo Enoce, Jr., Segment Producer November Php30,000.00
2005
Maria Veronica Segment Producer August 2010 Php20,000.00
Guingon,
Leonardo Leonor, Cameraman May Php34,000.00
Bryan Kristoffer Segment Producer June 2007 Php26,000.00
Brazil,
Winchelle Ochoa, Segment Producer September Php20,000.00
2011
Regit Adrian Production September Php40,000.00
Antonio, Assistant/VR 2011
Harvey Henryan Executive Producer May 2005 Php72,000.00
Bayona,
Jan Meynard Segment Producer September Php34,000.00
Nualla, 2009
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 7 of 19
DECISION

Lea Paz Torre, Team Head August 2007 Php29,000.00

Serafin Camdido Researcher June 2013 Php14,000.00
Gozon,
Igal Jade San Researcher May 2013 Php14,000.00
Andres,
Rayla Marie Researcher July 2013 Php31,000.00
Castillo,
Mark Anthony Segment Producer June 2010 Php34,000.00
Norella,

An agreement called General Terms was also attached in

each of the Talent Agreements. Section 23 of the General Terms
provides:

“23. This Contract does not establish an employer-

employee relationship between GMA and TALENT. TALENT
agrees that as an independent contractor, TALENT is not
entitled to any rights and benefits granted to regular
employees of GMA other than those specifically provided
herein.”

Pursuant to Revenue Regulation No. 4-20149 of the

Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), GMA issued Memorandum
dated April 14, 201410 requiring its talents to register with the
BIR as independent contractors and issue receipts for the talent
fees being paid to them.

Claiming that they are not independent contractors but

are regular employees of petitioner GMA, private respondents
filed a Complaint against petitioners GMA and its Chairman and
Chief Executive Office Atty. Felipe L. Gozon (Gozon) (collectively
referred to as petitioners) before the Labor Arbiter.

In their Position Paper, 11 private respondents alleged that

one of the indications that they were regular employees was that
their employment contract contains an exclusivity clause which
prohibits them from offering their services to other

9
Guidelines and Policies for Monitoring of Service Fees of Professional, id. at 847-848.
10
Rollo, pp. 845-846.
11
Id. at 770-811.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 8 of 19
DECISION

networks. That the manner of private respondents' selection as

employees were conducted by petitioner GMA as they applied
for employment, submitted their resumes, medical certificates,
pictures, and transcript of records at petitioner GMA's office,
and that they were also made to undergo screening
examinations, medical examination and interview by petitioner
GMA. Private respondents' wages were also paid by petitioner
GMA. The power to dismiss private respondents also belonged
to petitioner GMA as the former were subject to the latter's
disciplining authority and procedures as well as rules and
regulations. In addition, petitioner GMA has control over the
means and methods of private respondents' work as they were
subject to continuing job evaluation and the result of which also
serves as the basis the for the increase or decrease in their
salaries and benefits. Lastly, private respondents alleged that
some of them were employed by petitioner GMA for more than
6 months, at the very least, or for 15 years performing work that
are necessary and desirable in the ordinary course of its
business.

On the other hand, petitioners countered that the Talent

Agreements are fixed term employment contracts since each of
them includes a fixed term of employment which were entered
by the private respondents knowingly, voluntarily, without any
force and duress, and on equal terms. As such, petitioners
claimed that the validity of their fixed term employment
agreements should be sustained regardless of whether or not
the private respondents performed duties which are necessary
and desirable in the usual business of the employer.

In their Position Paper ,12 petitioners GMA and Gozon

insisted that there is no employer-employee relationship
between petitioner GMA and its talents. Petitioners explained
that: a) as to the power to hire – petitioner GMA was not involved
in the selection of the employees since private respondents
never filed any application with petitioner GMA, they were never
given any appointment document informing them that they
were being hired as employees, they do not have a regular work
schedule and not required to submit a

12
Id. at 153-260.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 9 of 19
DECISION

Daily Time Records (DTRs), and they are allowed to access

petitioner GMA's premises only for coordination and to facilitate
the performance of their work; b) as to the power to dismiss –
petitioner GMA is not in a position to dismiss or sanction private
respondents in whatever manner because they are not its
employees; c) as to the payment of wages – they were paid talent
fees which are substantially higher than their equivalent
regular employees of petitioner GMA, they are not included in
the roster of employees and in the payroll of regular employees
of petitioner GMA, and if they would be regularized, it will create
a salary dislocation; and d) as to the power to control the
worker's conduct – petitioner GMA do not have control as to the
means and manner of private respondents work since they
performed their work using their own expertise, techniques,
ingenuity, procedures and system of work independently and
without interference from petitioner GMA subject only to
coordination on the kind and nature of work and the results to
be obtained.

Further, petitioners claimed that the private respondents

are bound by their Talent Agreements which states that there is
no employer-employee relationship between them, and that the
latter are considered as independent contractors. Petitioners
added that the mere fact that an employee has been repeatedly
hired is not tantamount to the existence of an employer-
employee relationship as the more paramount factor that
determines the existence of the same is the content of their
employment contract.

Lastly, petitioners contended that the complaint against

petitioner Gozon should be dismissed since he has not acted
with malice, bad faith or fraud in the discharge of his duties as
an officer of petitioner GMA.

After submission of additional pleadings where they

respectively reiterated their positions, the Labor Arbiter, in a
Decision13 dated June 22, 2015, found that private respondents
are regular employees of petitioner GMA and as

13
Supra, Note 5.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 10 of 19
DECISION

such are entitled to security of tenure and all benefits and rights
appurtenant thereto.

On appeal,14 public respondent NLRC in its Decision

dated September 30, 2015 affirmed with modification the
Decision rendered by the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC ruled that the
private respondents are not independent contractors but are
regular employees of GMA. The dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE , the appeal filed by respondents is

PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 22 June 2015 of the
Labor Arbiter Julio R. Gayaman is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION.

With respect to eight (8) complainants, namely: Elton

Jun V. Veloria, Jobelyn O. Bonifacio, Raymond R. Bermeo,
Carmela Joyce E. Pamiloza, Antonio Tiemsin, Jr., Kerwin
Lawrence H. Octavio, Jevi Bryan D. Bilaos and Mary Grace
Lalu-Depalubos, the appealed Decision of the Labor Arbiter is
MODIFIED in that, these eight (8) complainants are declared
regular employees of GMA and are entitled to security of
tenure and all benefits and other rights appurtenant to their
status as regular employees, but only up to the date
immediately preceding their effective dates of resignation.

The complaint of complainant Jerome M. Nebres is

dismissed for having been withdrawn from the docket of this
case.

For the remaining ninety -seven (97) complainants, the

appealed Decision of the Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

Unsuccessful at a reconsideration,15 the petitioners filed

this instant Petition for Certiorari ascribing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the public respondent NLRC when it
affirmed the Decision of the LA.

14
Rollo, pp. 1335-1452.
15
Id. at 1459-1506.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 11 of 19
DECISION

Petitioners maintain that the NLRC had failed to consider

the history and peculiarity of the broadcast industry and its
practice; that it did not consider the circumstances surrounding
the payment of talent fees to private respondents, including it
being glaringly high compared to the other employees of
petitioner GMA; that the four-fold test in determining the
existence of employer-employee relationship was misapplied
citing the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,16
and that private respondents are independent contractors or
fixed-term employees.

The Petition for Certiorari is unmeritorious.

It is settled that factual findings of labor administrative

officials, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded not
only great respect but even finality, unless there is a showing
that they arbitrarily disregarded the evidence before them or
had misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a
contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.17

Judicial review of decisions of the NLRC via petition for

certiorari under Rule 65 is confined only to issues of lack or
excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the NLRC. Thus Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman 18
teaches:

. . . As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court under which the petition was
brought to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court does not
assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the
labor arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusions, the query
being limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion in rendering its resolution, except if the
findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial
evidence.

16
G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004.
17
Digitel Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Soriano, G.R. No. 166039, June 26, 2006.
18
G.R. No. 154368, April 15, 2005.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 12 of 19
DECISION

In this case, it is not shown that the NLRC exercised its

judgment whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically by reason of
passion and hostility considering that its findings are supported
by substantial evidence.

To determine the existence of an employer-employee

relationship, case law has consistently applied the four-fold
test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employer's power to control the employee on the means and
methods by which the work is accomplished. Of these criteria,
the so-called “control test” is generally regarded as the most
crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence
of an employer-employee relationship. Under this test, an
employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the
person for whom the services are performed reserves the right
to control not only the end result but also the manner and
means utilized to achieve the same.19

In discounting the existence of said relationship between

the parties, petitioners insist that the private respondents were
merely engaged as independent contractors since they rendered
services for the company because of their talents, skills,
training and expertise in performing their respective tasks as
well as the high talent fees including the circumstances on how
it is given to them.

Article 280 (now Article 286) of the Labor Code provides

the nature of one's employment, to wit:

“ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.— The

provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the
parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where
the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed
for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the

19
Begino v. ABS-CBN Corporation, G.R. No. 199166, April 20, 2015.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 13 of 19
DECISION

work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the

employment is for the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not

covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such actually exists.”

It has been ruled that the foregoing provision contemplates

four kinds of employees, namely: (a) regular employees or those
who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; (b) project employees or those whose employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion
or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee; (c) seasonal employees or those
who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature, and
the employment is for the duration of the season; and (d) casual
employees or those who are not regular, project, or seasonal
employees. To the foregoing classification of employee,
jurisprudence has added that of contractual or fixed term
employee which, if not for the fixed term, would fall under the
category of regular employment in view of the nature of the
employee’s engagement, which is to perform activity usually
necessary or desirable in the employer’s business.20

After review of the records, We reach the conclusion that

the private respondents are regular employees of petitioner
GMA.

Time and again, it has been ruled that the test to determine
whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable
connection between the activity performed by the employee in
relation to the business or trade of the employer.21 As pointed out
by the private respondents, they are part of production crew who,
were undoubtedly performing functions
20
Ibid.
21 Id.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 14 of 19
DECISION

necessary and essential to petitioner GMA's business of

broadcasting television. Truly, without their work, petitioner
GMA would have nothing to air, hence the private respondents'
services in the former's television program were unquestionably
necessary and essential. Needless to state, petitioner GMA's
goal was to ensure excellent delivery of its programs to the
viewing public. This could not have been achieved had it not
been for the skills of the private respondents.

Besides, even assuming that private respondents'

employment contracts were for a fixed term, it is undisputed
that the private respondents have been renewed from one,
three, or six months, or for one or five years which deemed them
to be petitioner GMA's regular employees. The successive
renewals of private respondents' contract indicated the
necessity and desirability of their work in the usual course of
petitioner GMA and this has been affirmed by jurisprudence. In
the case of Begino, et al. v. ABS-CBN Corporation,22 the Supreme
Court, expounded in this manner:

“If the employee has been performing the job for at least
one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated or continuing
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not
indispensability of that activity in the business. Indeed, an
employment stops being co-terminous with specific projects
where the employee is continuously re-hired due to the
demands of the employer’s business. When circumstances
show, moreover, that contractually stipulated periods of
employment have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of
tenurial security by the employee, this Court has not hesitated
in striking down such arrangements as contrary to public
policy, morals, good customs or public order. The nature of
the employment depends, after all, on the nature of the
activities to be performed by the employee, considering the
nature of the employer’s business, the duration and scope to
be done, and, in some cases, even the length of time of the
performance and its continued existence. In the same manner
that the practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry
does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and
compliant with labor law,

22
Supra, Note 18.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 15 of 19
DECISION

it has, consequently, been ruled that the assertion that a

talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular
employment status.”

Also, in the case of ABS-CBN v. Marquez,23 to wit:

“It may be so that respondents were assigned to a

particular tele-series. However, petitioner can and did
immediately reassign them to a new production upon
completion of a previous one. Hence, they were continuously
employed, the tele-series being a regular feature in petitioner's
network programs. Petitioner's continuous engagement of
respondents from one production after another, for more than
five years, made the latter part of petitioner's workpool who
cannot be separated from the service without cause as they
are considered regular. A project employee or a member of a
workpool may acquire the status of a regular employee when
the following concur: there is continuous rehiring of project
employees even after the cessation of the project; and the
tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital,
necessary, and indispensable to the usual business or trade
of his employer. It cannot be denied that the services of
respondents as members of a crew in the production of a tele
-series are undoubtedly connected with the business of the
petitioner. This Court has held that the primary standard in
determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in
relation to the business or trade of his employer. Here, the
activity performed by respondents is, without doubt, vital to
petitioner's trade or business.”

Furthermore, the four -fold test to determine the existence

of an employer-employee relationship i.e the selection and
engagement of the employee; the payment of wages; the power
of dismissal; and the power to control the employee’s conduct,24
was duly established in this case.

Contrary to petitioners' assertion that private respondents

were merely invited due to their unique skills and that it is the
latter who offered their services to the former, it cannot be
denied that the latter's services were still selected
23
G.R. No. 164156, September 26, 2006.
24 Royal Homes Marketing Corporation v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 195190, July 28, 2014.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 16 of 19
DECISION

and engaged by the former given that their Talent Agreements

uniformly states that petitioner “GMA engages the services of
TALENT in a television program”. Aside from that, some of the
private respondents were issued company ID's. In a business
establishment, an identification card is provided not only as a
security measure but mainly to identify the holder thereof as a
bona fide employee of the firm that issues it.25

As to wages, petitioner GMA insists that the talent fees are

not wages. However, the records show that private respondents
received their talent fees twice a month from petitioner GMA
with payslips that even bear the latter's brand logo. While
private respondents' remuneration, albeit denominated as
talent fees and considerably higher, the same is still considered
as included in the term wage in the sense and context of Article
97 (f)26 of the Labor Code, regardless of how petitioner GMA
chose to designate the remuneration. 27

There is no denying that under the Talent Agreement,

petitioner GMA has the power to discharge private respondents
should it find their work failed to meet its standards and the
latter are highly dependent on the former for continued work.

More importantly, the private respondents were subjected

to the control and supervision of petitioner GMA, a fact which
is regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of
the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship.
This is known as the “control test”. It has been shown likewise
that petitioner GMA has set the standards that private
respondents should follow. As aptly found by the NLRC, private
respondents' Job Description contains a detailed instruction on
how to accomplish their respective jobs, they

25
Francisco, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 170087, August 31, 2006.
26
. . . wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of
being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission
basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a
written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to
be rendered, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of
board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee.
27
Legend Hotel v. Realuyo, G.R. No. 153511, July 18, 2012.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 17 of 19
DECISION

must abide by the program standards and policies of petitioner

GMA, they are under the supervision of a program manager,
and that they were provided by petitioner GMA with supplies,
materials, equipment and technical facilites needed to perform
functions. These demonstrate petitioner GMA's exercise of the
power of control not only over the results of private respondents'
work but also over the means employed to achieve the same.

Moreover, We do not agree with petitioners' contention that

the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation28 will
help its cause. Parallels cannot be expediently drawn between
this case and the Sonza case. The latter case involved a well-
known television and radio personality who was considered a
talent and amply compensated as such. While possessed of
skills for which they were modestly recompensed by petitioner
GMA, private respondents lay no claim to fame or unique talents
for which talents like actors and personalities are hired and
generally compensated in the broadcast industry.29 In the case
of Begino, et al. v. ABS-CBN Corporation30 citing Dumpit-Murillo
v. Court of Appeals,31 which finds application in this case, the
Supreme Court has already declared:

“x x x, this Court has rejected the application of the

ruling in the Sonza case to employees similarly situated as
petitioners in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.
Nazareno. The following distinctions were significantly
observed between employees like petitioners and television or
radio personalities like Sonza, to wit:

First. In the selection and engagement of

respondents, no peculiar or unique skill, talent or
celebrity status was required from them because they
were merely hired through petitioner’s personnel
department just like any ordinary employee.

28 Supra, Note 16.

29 Supra, Note 19.
30 Ibid.
31
G.R. No. 164652, June 8, 2007.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 18 of 19
DECISION

Second. The so-called “talent fees” of respondents

correspond to wages given as a result of an employer-
employee relationship. Respondents did not have the
power to bargain for huge talent fees, a circumstance
negating independent contractual relationship.

Third. Petitioner could always discharge

respondents should it find their work unsatisfactory,
and respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner
for continued work.

Fourth. The degree of control and supervision

exercised by petitioner over respondents through its
supervisors negates the allegation that respondents are
independent contractors.”

Withal, the presumption is that when the work done is an

integral part of the regular business of the employer and when
the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an
independent business or professional service, such work is a
regular employment of such employee and not an independent
contractor. The Court will peruse beyond any such agreement
to examine the facts that typify the parties’ actual
relationship.32

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is hereby

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ZENAIDA T. GALAPATE-LAGUILLES
Associate Justice

32
Supra, Note 19.
CA-G.R. SP No. 144572 Page 19 of 19
DECISION

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIO V. LOPEZ
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
GABRIEL T. ROBENIOL
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it
is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIO V. LOPEZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Fourteenth Division