Digest Author: Terence John Ardolph.
L Ang supported by the occasion when PDI refused to publish petitioner’s
Orozco v. CA (2010)
Petitioner: Wilhelmina S. Orozco
Respondent: The Fifth Division of the Honorable Court of Appeals,
Philippine Daily Inquirer, and Leticia Jimenez Magsanok
Ponencia: Mendoza, J.
DOCTRINE: The determination of whether or not an employer-employee
relationship exists is on a case-to-case basis. In determining however,
the four-fold test has been consistently used. The most important
element in the four-fold test is control. Control not only means control
over the end product but also the means and methods in accomplishing
the work. Where certain limitations are inherent in the industry or
business involved, such inherent limitations cannot be considered in
determining the presence of control.
FACTS:
1. On March 1990, petitioner Wilhelmina Orozco was engaged by the
Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) to write a weekly column for its Lifestyle
Section.
2. Wilhelmina continuously submitted an article every week, except for a
6-month period when she was in New York. Even then, she still sent
her article through mail and received 250 and later 300 pesos per
published article.
3. November 7, 1992 was the last time her articles were published.
4. Petitioner claims that she was told by her editor that respondent
Magsanok wanted to stop publishing for no reason, but when brought
up to Magsanok herself claimed that the PDI chairperson found that
there were too many articles published in the Lifestyle section.
5. PDI claims that the reason why it had stopped publication of
Wilhelmina’s articles was because it failed to improve and was
superficially and poorly written; failing to meet the high standards of
the newspaper.
6. Wilhelmina then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages,
moral and exemplary damages before the NLRC.
7. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Wilhelmina on the ground that the
essential element of control was present and thus the latter was an
employee of PDC. The Labor Arbiter bases his findings on the fact that
PDC had control over the subject of the article, length, and even
perspective in that Wilhelmina’s articles had to be written on matters
of feminine interest. The fact that Wilhelmina did not have to report to
work is of no matter because her tasks were mainly mental. This was
article about death for All Saints Day.
8. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
9. The CA, however, reversed the decision of the NLRC. The CA found
that no employment contract existed. This is supported by the fact that
Wilhelmina did not report 8 hours a day and left for New York for 6
months without PDI’s permission; with no repercussions. With regard
to the element of control, the CA found it to be lacking as well. The
length is only a concern of practicality was to properly fit the page,
while the claimed control over the topic is not really such since she
could write about anything that would match a lifestyle section. PDI
could control the result but not the means.
ISSUES:
1. WON petitioner Wilhelmina is an employee of PDI.
RULING + RATIO:
1. No.
a. Although Wilhelmina herself admitted that she "was not, and
had never been considered respondent’s employee because
the terms of works were arbitrarily decided upon by the
respondent," it is the law and not the will of the parties that
defines the status of employment in this jurisdiction.
b. The “four-fold test” has constantly been used by the court to
determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. The test is whether or not the four elements of
employment exist; namely, 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’s conduct.
c. The element of control, or whether the employer controls or
may control the means and methods in accomplishing the
work as well as the end product, is the most important in
determining said relationship.
d. The Court found that the “control” that PDI exerted on
Wilhelmina are inherent conditions in every newspaper and
such restrictions are dictated by the nature of the business
and not the “employer.”
e. Petitioner in the present case was proven to be able to write
in the style she was accustomed to as well as use whatever
method of research. In fact, the title “Feminist Reflections”
was chosen by her.
f. The only thing that PDC controlled was whether or not to
publish and nothing else.
g. The Court also used the Economic Reality Test. This test
involves looking into the economic realties prevailing between
the parties. In the present. Wilhelmina was not dependent on
PDI because her main occupation was a women’s right
activist in several organizations and even contributes to other
articles. Their relationship then also fails the Economic Reality
Test.
h. Wilhelmina is an independent contractor because PDI was not
involved in the actual performance of the product but only
reserved the right to cancel or shorten the article based on the
newspaper’s capacity.

Disposition: Decision of the CA is affirmed.