G.R. No.

164156

September 26, 2006

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
MARLYN NAZARENO, MERLOU GERZON, JENNIFER DEIPARINE, and JOSEPHINE
LERASAN, respondents.

Facts:
ABS-CBN employed respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as
production assistants (PAs) on different dates. They were assigned at the news and
public affairs, for various radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station, with a
monthly compensation of P4,000. They were issued ABS-CBN employees identification
cards and were required to work for a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays
and holidays. They were made to: a) Prepare, arrange airing of commercial
broadcasting based on the daily operations log and digicart of respondent ABS-CBN; b)
Coordinate, arrange personalities for air interviews; c) Coordinate, prepare schedule of
reporters for scheduled news reporting and lead-in or incoming reports; d) Facilitate,
prepare and arrange airtime schedule for public service announcement and complaints;
e) Assist, anchor program interview, etc; and f) Record, log clerical reports, man based
control radio.
Petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) to be effective during the period from Dec 11, 1996 to Dec 11, 1999.
However, since petitioner refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit,
respondents were not included to the CBA.
Due to a memorandum assigning PAs to non-drama programs, and that the DYAB
studio operations would be handled by the studio technician. There was a revision of
the schedule and assignments and that respondent Gerzon was assigned as the fulltime PA of the TV News Department reporting directly to Leo Lastimosa.
On Oct 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment
Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive
Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the
NLRC.
Issue: WON the respondents are regular employees?
Held: Respondents are considered regular employees of ABS-CBN and are entitled to
the benefits granted to all regular employees.
Where a person has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of
the activity performed, or where the work is continuous or intermittent, the
employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists. The reason being that
a customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as
having attained regular status. Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:
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 work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.
Any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
intermittent, is deemed regular with respect to the activity performed and while such
activity actually exists. The fact that respondents received pre-agreed talent fees
instead of salaries, that they did not observe the required office hours, and that they
were permitted to join other productions during their free time are not conclusive of the
nature of their employment. They are regular employees who perform several different
duties under the control and direction of ABS-CBN executives and supervisors.
There are two kinds of regular employees under the law: (1) those engaged to
perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer; and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year
of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activities in which they
are employed.
What determines whether a certain employment is regular or otherwise is the
character of the activities performed in relation to the particular trade or business
taking into account all the circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of its
performance and its continued existence.
The employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents has been
proven by the ff:
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 petitioners personnel department just like any ordinary
employee.
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.
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.

ANGELINA FRANCISCO, Petitioner, -versus- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION, KASEI CORPORATION, SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO,
DELFIN LIZA, IRENE BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON ESCUETA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 170087

August 31, 2006

Facts:
Petitoner was hired by Kasei Corporation during the incorporation stage. She was
designated as accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned to handle all the
accounting needs of the company. She was also designated as Liason Officer to the City
of Manila to secure permits for the operation of the company.
In 1996, Petitioner was designated as Acting Manager. She was assigned to handle
recruitment of all employees and perform management administration functions. In
2001, she was replaced by Liza Fuentes as Manager. Kasei Corporation reduced her
salary to P2,500 per month which was until September. She asked for her salary but
was informed that she was no longer connected to the company. She did not anymore
report to work since she was not paid for her salary. She filed an action for constructive
dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC affirmed the
decision while CA reversed it.
Issue: WON there was an employer-employee relationship.
Held: Petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation.
The court held that in this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relation. Generally, courts have relied on the socalled right of control test where the person for whom the services are performed
reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be
used in reaching such end. In addition to the standard of right-of-control, the existing
economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee
in the payrolls, can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.
The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the
putative employers power to control the employee with respect to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic
realities of the activity or relationship.
In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, the court observed the need to consider the existing
economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of
right-of-control like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, to give a clearer
picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an
analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.

Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends
upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to
which the services performed are an integral part of the employers business; (2) the
extent of the workers investment in equipment and facilities; (3) the nature and
degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the workers opportunity for profit and
loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of
the claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of the
relationship between the worker and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency
of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business.
The proper standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is dependent on
the alleged employer for his continued employment in that line of business.
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei
Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura,
the corporations Technical Consultant. It is therefore apparent that petitioner is
economically dependent on respondent corporation for her continued employment in
the latters line of business.
There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei
Corporation. She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and is
economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of
business. Her main job function involved accounting and tax services rendered to
Respondent Corporation on a regular basis over an indefinite period of engagement.
Respondent Corporation hired and engaged petitioner for compensation, with the
power to dismiss her for cause. More importantly, Respondent Corporation had the
power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished.

ROGELIO P. NOGALES, for himself and on behalf of the minors, ROGER

ANTHONY, ANGELICA, NANCY, and MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER,
all surnamed
NOGALES, Petitioners -versus- CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, DR. OSCAR
ESTRADA, DR. ELY VILLAFLOR, DR. ROSA UY, DR. JOEL ENRIQUEZ, DR.
PERPETUA LACSON, DR. NOE ESPINOLA, and NURSE J. DUMLAO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 142625

December 19, 2006

FACTS
Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales ("Corazon"), who was then 37 years
old, was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Oscar Estrada ("Dr. Estrada")
beginning on her fourth month of pregnancy or as early as December 1975. Around
midnight of 25 May 1976, Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting
Corazon and Rogelio Nogales ("Spouses Nogales") to see Dr. Estrada at his home. After
examining Corazon, Dr. Estrada advised her immediate admission to the Capitol
Medical Center ("CMC"). t 6:13 a.m., Corazon started to experience convulsionsAt 6:22
a.m., Dr. Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor, applied low forceps to extract Corazon's baby.
In the process, a 1.0 x 2.5 cm. piece of cervical tissue was allegedly torn.At 6:27 a.m.,
Corazon began to manifest moderate vaginal bleeding which rapidly became profuse.
Corazon died at 9:15 a.m. The cause of death was "hemorrhage, post partum.
ISSUE Whether or not CMC is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Estrada.
HELD
Private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting
"consultant" staff. The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the
negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code which considers a
person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others based on the
former's responsibility under a relationship of patria potestas.

In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractorphysician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable
if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. This exception is also known as
the "doctrine of apparent authority.

For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must
show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a
reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was
an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the
appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge

of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of
the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence. In the instant
case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical staff. Through
CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority thereby leading the
Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of CMC.