Employer-Employee

1.Television and Production Exponents Inc and Tuviera vs Servana

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.

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.

Therefore, Servaa is entitled to receive a separation pay.

Regular Employee Defined:

One having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to a
companys business.
Independent Contractor Issue

Private respondents failed to show that petitioner has substantial capital or investment to
be qualified as an independent contractor. They likewise failed to present a written
contract which specifies the performance of a specified piece of work, the nature and
extent of the work and the term and duration of the relationship between herein petitioner
and private respondent TAPE.

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.

Thepresumptionisthatwhentheworkdoneisanintegralpartoftheregularbusiness
oftheemployerandwhentheworker,relativetotheemployer,doesnotfurnishan
independentbusinessorprofessionalservice,suchworkisaregularemploymentof
suchemployeeandnotanindependentcontractor.

3.BenartevsPBA

The fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that petitioner
is an employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered an employee, the
hiring party must have control over the means and methods by which the hired
party is to perform his work, which is absent in this case. The continuous rehiring by
PBA of petitioner simply signifies the renewal of the contract between PBA and
petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services rendered by petitioner warranting
such contract renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioner's
services at the end of the term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory
services, or violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, or for whatever
other reason, the same merely results in the non-renewal of the contract, as in the
present case. The non-renewal of the contract between the parties does not
constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by respondents.

4. Sonza vs Abs CBN

Independent contractor

Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employee-employer

relationship are selection and engagement of the employee, the payment of wages,
the power of dismissal and the employers power to control the employee on the
means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-
called "control test", is the most important element.

Sonzas services to co-host its television and radio programs are because of his
peculiar talents, skills and celebrity status. Independent contractors often present
themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from
ordinary employees. The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his
unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual
relationship. All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of
negotiations that led to the Agreement. For violation of any provision of the
Agreement, either party may terminate their relationship. Applying the control test
to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent
contractor.

The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an
employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control
the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer
exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds
true as well the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is
considered an independent contractor. To perform his work, SONZA only needed
his skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television,
and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBNs control. ABS-CBN did not instruct
SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to modify the
program format and airtime schedule "for more effective programming." ABS-CBNs
sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the ratings.

Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of
performance of Sonzas work. A radio broadcast specialist who works under
minimal supervision is an independent contractor. Sonzas work as television and
radio program host required special skills and talent, which SONZA admittedly
possesses.
ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing practice in the broadcast and
entertainment industries to treat talents like Sonza as independent contractors. The
right of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if
there is an employer-employee relationship under labor laws. Individuals with
special skills, expertise or talent enjoy the freedom to offer their services as
independent contractors. The right to life and livelihood guarantees this freedom to
contract as independent contractors. The right of labor to security of tenure cannot
operate to deprive an individual, possessed with special skills, expertise and talent,
of his right to contract as an independent contractor.

5. Abella vs PLDT