Lawyerly

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

In the decision[17] dated September 10, 2009, Labor Arbiter Corazon C. Borbolla dismissed Arlene's complaint.[18] Citing Sonza v. ABS-CBN[19] and applying the four-fold test, the Labor Arbiter held that Arlene was not Fuji's employee but an independent contractor.[20]

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

Sonza was engaged by ABS-CBN in view of his "unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees."[188] His work was for radio and television programs.[189] On the other hand, Dumpit-Murillo was hired by ABC as a newscaster and co-anchor.[190]

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

Sonza's talent fee amounted to P317,000.00 per month, which this court found to be a substantial amount that indicated he was an independent contractor rather than a regular employee.[191] Meanwhile, Dumpit-Murillo's monthly salary was P28,000.00, a very low amount compared to what Sonza received.[192]

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

Sonza was unable to prove that ABS-CBN could terminate his services apart from breach of contract. There was no indication that he could be terminated based on just or authorized causes under the Labor Code. In addition, ABS-CBN continued to pay his talent fee under their agreement, even though his programs were no longer broadcasted.[193] Dumpit-Murillo was found to have been illegally dismissed by her employer when they did not renew her contract on her fourth year with ABC.[194]

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

In Sonza, this court ruled that ABS-CBN did not control how Sonza delivered his lines, how he appeared on television, or how he sounded on radio.[195] All that Sonza needed was his talent.[196] Further, "ABS-CBN could not terminate or discipline SONZA even if the means and methods of performance of his work . . . did not meet ABS-CBN's approval."[197] In Dumpit-Murillo, the duties and responsibilities enumerated in her contract was a clear indication that ABC had control over her work.[198]

GR No. 185345

2014-09-10

RONNIE L. ABING v. NLRC

REYES, J.

Applying the four-fold test used in determining an employer-employee relationship, which are: (1) the selection and engagement of employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct,[21] the LA, the NLRC and the CA are all in agreement that these elements are possessed by FGSI.

GR No. 179652

2009-05-08

PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

TINGA, J.

Furthermore, respondent's pieces of evidence the identification card and the certification issued by petitioner's Greman Solante are not even determinative of an employer-employee relationship. The certification, issued upon the request of respondent, specifically stated that "MR. JANDELEON JUEZAN is a program employee of PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING SERVICES, INC. (DYMF- Bombo Radyo Cebu)," it is not therefore "crystal clear that complainant is a station employee rather than a program employee hence entitled to all the benefits appurtenant thereto,"[26] as found by the DOLE Regional Director. Respondent should be bound by his own evidence. Moreover, the classification as to whether one is a "station employee" and "program employee," as lifted from Policy Instruction No. 40,[27] dividing the workers in the broadcast industry into only two groups is not binding on this Court, especially when the classification has no basis either in law or in fact.[28]

GR No. 158956

2009-04-24

ILIGAN CEMENT CORPORATION v. ILIASCOR EMPLOYEES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In a labor-only contract, there are three parties involved: (1) the "labor-only" contractor; (2) the employee who is ostensibly under the employ of the "labor-only" contractor; and (3) the principal who is deemed the real employer. Under this scheme, the "labor-only" contractor is the agent of the principal. Here, Vedali is the "labor-only" contractor; individual respondents are the employees and petitioner is the principal. The law makes the principal responsible to the employees of the "labor-only contractor" as if the principal itself directly hired or employed the employees.[36]

GR No. 168923

2008-11-28

BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Further, deference to the expertise acquired by the labor tribunal and the limited scope granted the Court in the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction restrain any probe into the correctness of the NLRC's evaluation of evidence.[39] Oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual findings of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[40] as in the instant case. Thus, we find no reversible error in the CA's ruling affirming the NLRC's decision, with the exception again of the aforesaid 149 claimants.

GR No. 167622

2008-11-07

GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO.

VELASCO JR., J.

Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the means used to achieve it.[17] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 155207

2008-08-13

WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA

NACHURA, J.

On this point, Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation[46] is enlightening. In that case, the Court found, using the four-fold test, that petitioner, Jose Y. Sonza, was not an employee of ABS-CBN, but an independent contractor. Sonza was hired by ABS-CBN due to his "unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees," a circumstance that, the Court said, was indicative, though not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship. Independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees.[47] The Court also found that, as to payment of wages, Sonza's talent fees were the result of negotiations between him and ABS-CBN.[48] As to the power of dismissal, the Court found that the terms of Sonza's engagement were dictated by the contract he entered into with ABS-CBN, and the same contract provided that either party may terminate the contract in case of breach by the other of the terms thereof.[49] However, the Court held that the foregoing are not determinative of an employer-employee relationship. Instead, it is still the power of control that is most important.

GR No. 167345

2007-11-23

E PACIFIC GLOBAL CONTACT CENTER v. MA. LOURDES CABANSAY

NACHURA, J.

Oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual finding of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[39] unless there is showing that the labor tribunal arbitrarily disregarded evidence before them or misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.[40] Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is shown not by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the labor tribunal in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.[41]

GR No. 156668

2007-11-23

KIMBERLY-CLARK v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

NACHURA, J.

Finally, oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual findings of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[14] unless there is showing that the labor tribunal arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it or misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.[15] Likewise, the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the labor tribunal in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.[16]

GR No. 164652

2007-06-08

THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

On the second issue, private respondents contend that the Court of Appeals did not err when it upheld the validity of the talent contracts voluntarily entered into by petitioner. It further stated that prevailing jurisprudence has recognized and sustained the absence of employer-employee relationship between a talent and the media entity which engaged the talent's services on a per talent contract basis, citing the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation.[21]

GR NO. 164156

2006-09-26

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MARLYN NAZARENO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Petitioner's reliance on the ruling of this Court in Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation[43] is misplaced. In that case, the Court explained why Jose Sonza, a well-known television and radio personality, was an independent contractor and not a regular employee:A. Selection and Engagement of Employee

GR NO. 167813

2006-06-27

BENJAMIN L. SAROCAM v. INTERORIENT MARITIME ENT.

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It must be stressed that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.[23] The Court is not a trier of facts and is not to reassess the credibility and probative weight of the evidence of the parties and the findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC as affirmed by the appellate court. Moreover, the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence, which means such evidence as that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.[24]

GR NO. 152616

2006-03-31

PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ

CARPIO, J.

This Court generally accords respect to the factual findings of the NLRC. However, the rule is equally settled that this Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions of the NLRC if the NLRC's findings of fact on which its conclusions are based are not supported by substantial evidence.[21] Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[22] Factual findings of administrative agencies will be set aside if found arbitrary.[23]

GR NO. 154410

2005-10-20

HEAVYLIFT MANILA v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Apropos the award of service incentive pay and 13th month pay, we find that they were properly prayed for by Galay. These were subsumed in the complaint and under the position paper's general prayer of "such other relief as are just and equitable under the law". Petitioners failed to present evidence that these benefits were already paid. Moreover, this issue involves a question of fact which is not proper in a petition for certiorari and the determinations of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are afforded great weight and respect by the courts on these matters, when these findings are supported by substantial evidence, and devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness. [23] Hence, their findings must be sustained.

GR NO. 145271

2005-08-14

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Needless to stress, for the power of control to be present, the person for whom the services are rendered must reserve the right to direct not only the end to be achieved but also the means for reaching such end.[26] Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the former.[27] Rules which serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result are not indicative of the power of control.[28]

GR No. 145271

2005-07-14

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Needless to stress, for the power of control to be present, the person for whom the services are rendered must reserve the right to direct not only the end to be achieved but also the means for reaching such end.[26] Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the former.[27] Rules which serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result are not indicative of the power of control.[28]

GR NO. 145443

2005-03-18

RAQUEL P. CONSULTA v. CA

CARPIO, J.

In Viaña v. Al-Lagadan,[9] the Court first laid down the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The four elements of an employer-employee relationship, which have since been adopted in subsequent jurisprudence,[10] are (1) the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control. The power to control is the most important of the four elements.

	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
In the decision[17] dated September 10, 2009, Labor Arbiter Corazon C. Borbolla dismissed Arlene's complaint.[18] Citing Sonza v. ABS-CBN[19] and applying the four-fold test, the Labor Arbiter held that Arlene was not Fuji's employee but an independent contractor.[20]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Sonza was engaged by ABS-CBN in view of his "unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees."[188] His work was for radio and television programs.[189] On the other hand, Dumpit-Murillo was hired by ABC as a newscaster and co-anchor.[190]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Sonza's talent fee amounted to P317,000.00 per month, which this court found to be a substantial amount that indicated he was an independent contractor rather than a regular employee.[191] Meanwhile, Dumpit-Murillo's monthly salary was P28,000.00, a very low amount compared to what Sonza received.[192]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Sonza was unable to prove that ABS-CBN could terminate his services apart from breach of contract. There was no indication that he could be terminated based on just or authorized causes under the Labor Code. In addition, ABS-CBN continued to pay his talent fee under their agreement, even though his programs were no longer broadcasted.[193] Dumpit-Murillo was found to have been illegally dismissed by her employer when they did not renew her contract on her fourth year with ABC.[194]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
In Sonza, this court ruled that ABS-CBN did not control how Sonza delivered his lines, how he appeared on television, or how he sounded on radio.[195] All that Sonza needed was his talent.[196] Further, "ABS-CBN could not terminate or discipline SONZA even if the means and methods of performance of his work . . . did not meet ABS-CBN's approval."[197] In Dumpit-Murillo, the duties and responsibilities enumerated in her contract was a clear indication that ABC had control over her work.[198]
	GR No. 185345 2014-09-10	RONNIE L. ABING v. NLRC REYES, J.
Applying the four-fold test used in determining an employer-employee relationship, which are: (1) the selection and engagement of employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct,[21] the LA, the NLRC and the CA are all in agreement that these elements are possessed by FGSI.
	GR No. 179652 2009-05-08	PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TINGA, J.
Furthermore, respondent's pieces of evidence the identification card and the certification issued by petitioner's Greman Solante are not even determinative of an employer-employee relationship. The certification, issued upon the request of respondent, specifically stated that "MR. JANDELEON JUEZAN is a program employee of PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING SERVICES, INC. (DYMF- Bombo Radyo Cebu)," it is not therefore "crystal clear that complainant is a station employee rather than a program employee hence entitled to all the benefits appurtenant thereto,"[26] as found by the DOLE Regional Director. Respondent should be bound by his own evidence. Moreover, the classification as to whether one is a "station employee" and "program employee," as lifted from Policy Instruction No. 40,[27] dividing the workers in the broadcast industry into only two groups is not binding on this Court, especially when the classification has no basis either in law or in fact.[28]
	GR No. 158956 2009-04-24	ILIGAN CEMENT CORPORATION v. ILIASCOR EMPLOYEES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In a labor-only contract, there are three parties involved: (1) the "labor-only" contractor; (2) the employee who is ostensibly under the employ of the "labor-only" contractor; and (3) the principal who is deemed the real employer. Under this scheme, the "labor-only" contractor is the agent of the principal. Here, Vedali is the "labor-only" contractor; individual respondents are the employees and petitioner is the principal. The law makes the principal responsible to the employees of the "labor-only contractor" as if the principal itself directly hired or employed the employees.[36]
	GR No. 168923 2008-11-28	BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN v. CA NACHURA, J.
Further, deference to the expertise acquired by the labor tribunal and the limited scope granted the Court in the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction restrain any probe into the correctness of the NLRC's evaluation of evidence.[39] Oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual findings of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[40] as in the instant case. Thus, we find no reversible error in the CA's ruling affirming the NLRC's decision, with the exception again of the aforesaid 149 claimants.
	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the means used to achieve it.[17] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 155207 2008-08-13	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA NACHURA, J.
On this point, Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation[46] is enlightening. In that case, the Court found, using the four-fold test, that petitioner, Jose Y. Sonza, was not an employee of ABS-CBN, but an independent contractor. Sonza was hired by ABS-CBN due to his "unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees," a circumstance that, the Court said, was indicative, though not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship. Independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees.[47] The Court also found that, as to payment of wages, Sonza's talent fees were the result of negotiations between him and ABS-CBN.[48] As to the power of dismissal, the Court found that the terms of Sonza's engagement were dictated by the contract he entered into with ABS-CBN, and the same contract provided that either party may terminate the contract in case of breach by the other of the terms thereof.[49] However, the Court held that the foregoing are not determinative of an employer-employee relationship. Instead, it is still the power of control that is most important.
	GR No. 167345 2007-11-23	E PACIFIC GLOBAL CONTACT CENTER v. MA. LOURDES CABANSAY NACHURA, J.
Oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual finding of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[39] unless there is showing that the labor tribunal arbitrarily disregarded evidence before them or misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.[40] Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is shown not by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the labor tribunal in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.[41]
	GR No. 156668 2007-11-23	KIMBERLY-CLARK v. SECRETARY OF LABOR NACHURA, J.
Finally, oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual findings of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[14] unless there is showing that the labor tribunal arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it or misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.[15] Likewise, the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the labor tribunal in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.[16]
	GR No. 164652 2007-06-08	THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
On the second issue, private respondents contend that the Court of Appeals did not err when it upheld the validity of the talent contracts voluntarily entered into by petitioner. It further stated that prevailing jurisprudence has recognized and sustained the absence of employer-employee relationship between a talent and the media entity which engaged the talent's services on a per talent contract basis, citing the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation.[21]
	GR NO. 164156 2006-09-26	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MARLYN NAZARENO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner's reliance on the ruling of this Court in Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation[43] is misplaced. In that case, the Court explained why Jose Sonza, a well-known television and radio personality, was an independent contractor and not a regular employee:A. Selection and Engagement of Employee
	GR NO. 167813 2006-06-27	BENJAMIN L. SAROCAM v. INTERORIENT MARITIME ENT. CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.[23] The Court is not a trier of facts and is not to reassess the credibility and probative weight of the evidence of the parties and the findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC as affirmed by the appellate court. Moreover, the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence, which means such evidence as that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.[24]
	GR NO. 152616 2006-03-31	PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
This Court generally accords respect to the factual findings of the NLRC. However, the rule is equally settled that this Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions of the NLRC if the NLRC's findings of fact on which its conclusions are based are not supported by substantial evidence.[21] Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[22] Factual findings of administrative agencies will be set aside if found arbitrary.[23]
	GR NO. 154410 2005-10-20	HEAVYLIFT MANILA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Apropos the award of service incentive pay and 13th month pay, we find that they were properly prayed for by Galay. These were subsumed in the complaint and under the position paper's general prayer of "such other relief as are just and equitable under the law". Petitioners failed to present evidence that these benefits were already paid. Moreover, this issue involves a question of fact which is not proper in a petition for certiorari and the determinations of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are afforded great weight and respect by the courts on these matters, when these findings are supported by substantial evidence, and devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness. [23] Hence, their findings must be sustained.
	GR NO. 145271 2005-08-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Needless to stress, for the power of control to be present, the person for whom the services are rendered must reserve the right to direct not only the end to be achieved but also the means for reaching such end.[26] Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the former.[27] Rules which serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result are not indicative of the power of control.[28]
	GR No. 145271 2005-07-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROGELIO BENAMIRA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Needless to stress, for the power of control to be present, the person for whom the services are rendered must reserve the right to direct not only the end to be achieved but also the means for reaching such end.[26] Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the former.[27] Rules which serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result are not indicative of the power of control.[28]
	GR NO. 145443 2005-03-18	RAQUEL P. CONSULTA v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Viaña v. Al-Lagadan,[9] the Court first laid down the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The four elements of an employer-employee relationship, which have since been adopted in subsequent jurisprudence,[10] are (1) the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control. The power to control is the most important of the four elements.

JOSE Y. SONZA v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION