Maraguinot v.

NLRC

FACTS:
Petitioner maintains that he was employed by respondents as part of the filming crew. He was later promoted as an
electrician. Petitioners’ tasks contained of loading movie equipment in the shoothing area. Petitioners sought the assistance of their
supervisor, Cesario, to facilitate their request that respondents adjust their salary in accordance with the minimum wage law. Mrs.
Cesario informed petitioners that del Rosario would agree to increase their salary only if they signed a blank employment contract.
As petitioner refused to sign, respondents forced Enero (the other petitioner who worked as a crew member) to go on leave.
However, when he reported to work, respondent refused to take him back. Maraguinot was dropped from the company payroll but
when he returned, he was again asked to sign a blank employment contract, and when he still refused, respondent ’s terminated his
services. Petitioners thus sued for illegal dismissal.
Private respondents assert that they contract persons called producers to produce or make movies for private respondents
and contend that petitioners are project employees of the associate producers, who act as independent contractors. Thus, there is
no ER-EE relationship.
However, petitioners cited that their performance of activities is necessary in the usual trade or business of respondents
and their work in continuous.

ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists

HELD: Yes.

With regards to VIVA’s contention that it does not make movies but merely distributes motion pictures, there is no
sufficient proof to prove this contention.
In respect to respondents’ allegation that petitioners are project employees, it is a settled rule that the contracting out of
labor is allowed only in case of job contracting. However, assuming that the associate producers are job contactors, they must then
be engaged in the business of making motion pictures. Associate producers must have tools necessary to make motion pictures.
However, the associate producers in this case have none of these. The movie-making equipment are supplied to the producers and
owned by VIVA. Thus, it is clear that the associate producer merely leases the equipment from VIVA.
In addition, the associate producers of VIVA cannot be considered labor-only contractors as they did not supply, recruit
nor hire the workers. It was Cesario, the Shooting Supervisor of VIVA, who recruited crew members. Thus, the relationship
between VIVA and its producers or associate producers seems to be that of agency.
With regards to the issue of illegal dismissal, petitioners assert that they were regular employees who were illegally
dismissed. Petitioners in this case had already attained the status of regular employees in view of VIVA ’s conduct. Thus, petitioners
are entitled to back wages.
A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the status of a regular employee when:
a. there is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after a cessation of project
b. the tasks performed by the alleged project employee are vital and necessary to the business of employer
The tasks of petitioners in loading movie equipment and returning it to VIVA’s warehouse and fixing the lighting system
were vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Wherefore, petition is granted.