42 SCRA 578 Labor Law Labor Standards Regular

Employee Employer-employee relationship Four Fold Test

Servaa started out as a security for the Agro-Commercial
Security Agency (ACSA) since 1987. The agency had a
contract with TV network RPN 9.
On the other hand, Television and Production Exponents, Inc
(TAPE). is a company in charge of TV programming and was
handling shows like Eat Bulaga! Eat Bulaga! was then with
RPN 9.
In 1995, RPN 9 severed its relations with ACSA. TAPE
retained the services of Servaa as a security guard and
absorbed him.
In 2000, TAPE contracted the services of Sun Shield Security
Agency. It then notified Servaa that he is being terminated
because he is now a redundant employee.

Servaa is definitely receiving a fixed amount as monthly

compensation. Hes receiving P6,000.00 a month.
3. Whether or not employer has the power to dismiss
employee.
The Memorandum of Discontinuance issued to Servaa to
notify him that he is a redundant employee evidenced TAPEs
power to dismiss Servaa.
4. Whether or not the employer has the power of control over
the employee.
The bundy cards which showed that Servaa was required to
report to work at fixed hours of the day manifested the fact
that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise, Servaa
could have reported at any time during the day as he may
wish.

Servaa then filed a case for illegal Dismissal. The Labor

Arbiter ruled that Servaas dismissal is valid on the ground
of redundancy but though he was not illegally dismissed he is
still entitled to be paid a separation pay which is amounting to
one month pay for every year of service which totals to
P78,000.00.

Therefore, Servaa is entitled to receive a separation pay.

TAPE appealed and argued that Servaa is not entitled to

receive separation pay for he is considered as a talent and
not as a regular employee; that as such, there is no
employee-employer relationship between TAPE and Servaa.
The National Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of
TAPE. It ruled that Servaa is a program employee. Servaa
appealed before the Court of Appeals.

Regular Employee Defined:

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and affirmed the

LA. The CA further ruled that TAPE and its president Tuviera
should pay for nominal damages amounting to P10,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employee-employer
relationship existing between TAPE and Servaa.
HELD: Yes. Servaa is a regular employee.
In determining Servaas nature of employment, the Supreme
Court employed the Four Fold Test:
1. Whether or not employer conducted the selection and
engagement of the employee.
Servaa was selected and engaged by TAPE when he was
absorbed as a talent in 1995. He is not really a talent, as
termed by TAPE, because he performs an activity which is
necessary and desirable to TAPEs business and that is being
a security guard. Further, the primary evidence of him being
engaged as an employee is his employee identification card.
An identification card is usually provided not just as a security
measure but to mainly identify the holder thereof as a bona
fide employee of the firm who issues it.
2. Whether or not there is payment of wages to the employee
by the employer.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that Tuviera, as

president of TAPE, should not be held liable for nominal
damages as there was no showing he acted in bad faith in
terminating Servaa.

One having been engaged to perform an activity that is

necessary and desirable to a companys business.