2.
Servana filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits against
1. TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS v. SERVANA,
G.R. No. 167648. January 28, 2008
Kazel Celeste
NATURE Petition for review under Rule 45
Petitioner/s Television and Production Exponents (TAPE), inc. And/or Antonio P. Tuviera
Respondent Roberto C. Servaña
Ponente Tinga, J..
RECIT READY DIGEST
FACTS:
Servana filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits against TAPE. The
Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaña’s 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.
TAPE appealed and argued that Servaña is not entitled to receive separation pay for he is con-
sidered as a talent and not as a regular employee; that as such, there is no employee-employer
relationship between TAPE and Servaña. The National Labor Relations Commission ruled in
favor of TAPE. It ruled that Servaña is a program employee. Servaña appealed before the Court
of Appeals. 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.
SC affirmed CA. Servaña is a regular employee. In determining Servaña’s nature of employ-
ment, the Supreme Court employed the Four Fold Test which was present in the case of Sevana.
DOCTRINE.
Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors to be considered in determining the
existence of employer-employee relationship, 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 with respect to the means and method by which the work is to be
accomplished. The most important factor involves the control test. Under the control test, there
is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the services are performed
reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the manner and means used to
achieve that end.
FACTS
1. Television and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE) is a domestic corporation engaged
in the production of television programs, such as the long-running variety program,
“Eat Bulaga!.” Its president is Antonio P. Tuviera (Tuviera). Respondent Roberto C.
Servaña had served as a security guard for TAPE from March 1987 until he was ter-
minated on 3 March 2000.
LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR
TAPE, alleging that on 2 March 2000, he received a memorandum informing him of
his impending dismissal on account of TAPE’s decision to contract the services of a
professional security agency. At the time of his termination, respondent was receiving
a monthly salary of P6,000.00. He claimed that the holiday pay, unpaid vacation and
sick leave benefits and other monetary considerations were withheld from him. He
further contended that his dismissal was undertaken without due process and violative
of existing labor laws, aggravated by nonpayment of separation pay.
3. In its Motion to Dismiss, TAPE countered that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction
over the case in the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the par-
ties. TAPE asserted that Servana was initially a security guard of Radio Philippines
Network (RPN); that he was tasked to assist TAPE during its productions specifically
to control the crowd; that when RPN severed its relationship with the security agency,
TAPE engaged the services of Servana, and that it was agreed that Servana would
render services until such time that TAPE shall have engaged the services of a security
agency; that in 1995, when his contract with RPN expired, Servana was retained as a
talent and a member of the support group until such time that TAPE shall have en-
gaged the eservices of a professional security agency; that TAPE issued a memoranda
to all talents, whose functions would be rendered redundant by the engagement of the
security agency, informing them of the management’s decision to terminate their ser-
vices.
4. TAPE averred that respondent was an independent contractor falling under the talent
group category and was working under a special arrangement which is recognized in
the industry. Respondent for his part insisted that he was a regular employee having
been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to TAPEE’s busi-
ness for thirteen (13) years.
5. The Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Servana to be a regular employee of TAPE, relying
on the nature of work of Servana, which is securing and maintaining order in the stu-
dio, as necessary and desireable in the usual business activity of TAPE. The LA also
ruled that the termination was valid on the ground of redundancy, and ordered the
payment of respondent’s separation pay.
6. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA and considered Servana a mere program em-
ployee. Servana’s MR was denied.
7. CA reversed the NLRC decision and found that Servana was a regular employee.
TAPE’s MR was denied.
ISSUE/S and RULING.
Whether there is an employer-employee relationship between TAPE and Servana
Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors (four-fold test) to be considered in
determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, namely: (a) the selection and en-
gagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and method by which the
work is to be accomplished.
Under the control test, there is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom
the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the
manner and means used to achieve that end.
In concluding that Servana was a regular employee, the four-fold test was applied.
1. Whether the employer conducted the selection and engagement of the employee –
YES
The selection and hiring of Servana was done by TAPE. In fact, TAPE themselves
admitted having engaged the services of Servana only in 1995 after TAPE severed its
relations with RPN Channel 9. By informing Servana through the Memorandum that
his services will be terminated as soon as the services of the newly hired security
agency begins, TAPE in effect acknowledged Servana to be their employee. For the
right to hire and fire is another important element of the employer-employee relation-
ship.
Servaña 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 TAPE’s 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 there was payment of wages by the employer to the employee – YES
Servana claims to have been receiving P5,444.44 as his monthly salary while TAPE
prefers to designate such amount as talent fees. Wages, as defined in the Labor Code,
are remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in
terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission
basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be
done, or for service rendered or to be rendered. It is beyond dispute that respondent
received a fixed amount as monthly compensation for the services he rendered to
TAPE.
3. Whether employer has the power to dismiss employee – YES
The Memorandum sent to Servana informing him of his impending dismissal evi-
denced TAPE’s power to dismiss Servana.
4. Whether employee has the power of control over the employee – YES
1
“Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary not-
withstanding 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 engage-
ment of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and employment
is for the duration of the season.
LABOR LAW 1 | DIGEST GROUP NAME | PROFESSOR
Control is manifested in the bundy cards submitted by respondent in evidence. He was
required to report daily and observe definite work hours. The bundy cards which
showed that Servaña was required to report to work at fixed hours of the day mani-
fested the fact that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise, Servaña could have
reported at any time during the day as he may wish.
TAPE further denies exercising control over respondent and maintains that the latter
is an independent contractor. Aside from possessing substantial capital or investment,
a legitimate job contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and independent busi-
ness and undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own account and under
its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, and free from the
control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of
the work except as to the results thereof. TAPE failed to establish that respondent is
an independent contractor. TAPE failed to show that Servana has substantial capital
or investment to be qualified as an independent contractor.
Regardless of whether or not respondent had been performing work that is necessary or desirable
to the usual business of TAPE, respondent is still considered a regular employee under Article
2801 of the Labor Code
As a regular employee, respondent cannot be terminated except for just cause or when author-
ized by law. It is clear from the tenor of the 2 March 2000 Memorandum that respondent’s
termination was due to redundancy.
DECISION.
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in
that only petitioner Television and Production Exponents, Inc. is liable to pay respondent the
amount of P10,000.00 as nominal damages for non- compliance with the statutory due process
and petitioner Antonio P. Tuviera is accordingly absolved from liability.
SO ORDERED.
NOTE/S:
Regular Employee Defined:
One having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to a company’s
business.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph. Provided, that,
any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employ-
ment shall continue while such activity exists.”