OROZCO vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: PDI engaged the services of Orozco to write a weekly column for its Lifestyle section. She religiously
submitted her articles except for a 6-month stint when she went to NY City. Nevertheless, she continued to send
her articles through mail. She also received compensation for every column that was published. When Orozcos
column appeared in the newspaper for the last time, her editor, Logarta, told her that the PDIs editor-in-chief,
Magsanoc, wanted to stop publishing her columns for no reason at all and advised her to talk to the editor-in-
chief. When Orozco talked to Magsanoc, the latter told her that it was the PDI chairperson who wanted to stop
the publication of her column.

However, when Orozco talked to Apostol, the latter told her that Magsanoc informed her that the Lifestyle section
had already many columnists. PDI claims that Magsanoc met with the editor of the Lifestyle section to discuss
how to improve said section. They agreed to cut down the number of columnists by keeping only those whose
columns were well-written, with regular feedback and following. In their judgment, petitioners column failed to
improve, continued to be superficially and poorly written, and failed to meet the high standards of the newspaper.
Hence, they decided to terminate petitioners column.

Orozco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

LAdecided in favor of petitioner.

NLRCdismissed the appeal and affirmed the LAs decision.

CAset aside the NLRCs decision and dismissed Orozcos complaint.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/s: Whether petitioner is an employee of PDI.

Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed.

HELD: Petition dismissed. Judgment and Resolution affirmed.

Applying the four-fold test, the Court held that PDI lacked control over the petitioner. Though PDI issued
guidelines for the petitioner to follow in the course of writing her columns, careful examination reveals that the
factors enumerated by the petitioner are inherent conditions in running a newspaper. In other words, the so-
called control as to time, space, and discipline are dictated by the very nature of the newspaper business itself.
Aside from the constraints presented by the space allocation of her column, there were no restraints on her
creativity; petitioner was free to write her column in the manner and style she was accustomed to and to use
whatever research method she deemed suitable for her purpose. The apparent limitation that she had to write
only on subjects that befitted the Lifestyle section did not translate to control, but was simply a logical
consequence of the fact that her column appeared in that section and therefore had to cater to the preference
of the readers of that section.
Orozco in this case is considered as an independent contractor. As stated in the case of Sonza vs. ABS-CBN,
independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish
them from ordinary employees. Like the petitioner in the cited case, Petitioner was engaged as a columnist for
her talent, skill, experience, and her unique viewpoint as a feminist advocate. How she utilized all these in writing
her column was not subject to dictation by respondent. As in Sonza, respondent PDI was not involved in the
actual performance that produced the finished product. It only reserved the right to shorten petitioners articles
based on the newspapers capacity to accommodate the same. This fact was not unique to petitioners column.
It is a reality in the newspaper business that space constraints often dictate the length of articles and columns,
even those that regularly appear therein.

Furthermore, respondent PDI did not supply petitioner with the tools and instrumentalities she needed to perform
her work. Petitioner only needed her talent and skill to come up with a column every week. As such, she had all
the tools she needed to perform her work. Hence, since Orozco is not an employee of PDI, the latter cannot be
held guilty of illegally dismissing the petitioner.

FULACHE vs ABS CBN

FACTS: The petitioners in this case are questioning the CBA executed between ABS-CBN and the ABS-CBN
Rank-and-File Employees Union (Union) because under such agreement, they are only considered as temporary
and not regular employees. The petitioners claimed that they should be recognized as regular employees of
ABS-CBN because they had already rendered more than a year of service in the company and, therefore, entitled
to the benefits of a regular employee. Instead of salaries, ABS-CBN pointed out that talents are paid a pre-
arranged consideration called talent fee taken from the budget of a particular program and subject to a ten
percent (10%) withholding tax. Talents do not undergo probation. Their services are engaged for a specific
program or production, or a segment thereof. Their contracts are terminated once the program, production or
segment is completed. ABS-CBN alleged that the petitioners services were contracted on various dates by its
Cebu station as independent contractors/off camera talents, and they were not entitled to regularization in these
capacities.

Labor Arbiterrendered decision holding that the petitioners were regular employees of ABS CBN, not
independent contractors, and are entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular employees.

NLRC--National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Fourth Division, mainly contending that the petitioners
were independent contractors, not regular employees. While the appeal of the regularization case was pending,
ABS-CBN dismissed Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen (all drivers) for their refusal to sign up
contracts of employment with service contractor Able Services. The four drivers and Atinen responded by filing
a complaint for illegal dismissal.

LAupheld the validity of ABS-CBN's contracting out of certain work or services in its operations. The labor
arbiter found that petitioners Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had been dismissed due to
redundancy, an authorized cause under the law.
NLRCreversed the labor arbiters ruling in the illegal dismissal case; it found that petitioners Fulache,
Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had been illegally dismissed and awarded them back wages and
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Under both cases, the petitioners were awarded CBA benefits and
privileges from the time they became regular employees up to the time of their dismissal.

NLRC resolved the motions for reconsideration on by both parties, thus, on the regularization issue, the
NLRC stood by the ruling that the petitioners were regular employees entitled to the benefits and
privileges of regular employees. On the illegal dismissal case, the petitioners, while recognized as regular
employees, were declared dismissed due to redundancy. The NLRC denied the petitioners second
motion for reconsideration in its order of May 31, 2006 for being a prohibited pleading.

ISSUE: WON the petitioners are correct that they should be considered already as regular employees

HELD:

As regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit and are therefore entitled to
CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract.

Section 1. APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. The parties agree that the appropriate bargaining unit
shall be regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION but shall not
include: a) Personnel classified as Supervisor and Confidential employees; b) Personnel who are on
casual or probationary status as defined in Section 2 hereof; c) Personnel who are on contract status
or who are paid for specified units of work such as writer-producers, talent-artists, and singers.

The inclusion or exclusion of new job classifications into the bargaining unit shall be subject of discussion
between the COMPANY and the UNION.

Under these terms, the petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit because they are
regular rank-and-file employees and do not belong to any of the excluded categories. Specifically, nothing
in the records shows that they are supervisory or confidential employees; neither are they casual nor
probationary employees. Most importantly, the labor arbiters decision of January 17, 2002 affirmed all
the way up to the CA level ruled against ABS-CBNs submission that they are independent contractors.
Thus, as regular rank-and-file employees, they fall within CBA coverage under the CBAs express terms
and are entitled to its benefits.

TAN vs LAGRAMA

FACTS: Petitioner Rolando Tan is the president of Supreme Theater Corporation and the general manager of
Crown and Empire Theaters in Butuan City. Private respondent Leovigildo Lagrama is a painter, making ad
billboards and murals for the motion pictures shown at the Empress, Supreme, and Crown Theaters for more
than 10 years, from September 1, 1988 to October 17, 1998.

On October 17, 1998, private respondent Lagrama was summoned by Tan and upbraided: Nangihi na naman
ka sulod sa imong drawinganan. (You again urinated inside your work area.) When Lagrama asked what Tan
was saying, Tan told him, Ayaw daghang estorya. Dili ko gusto nga mo-drawing ka pa. Guikan karon, wala nay
drawing. Gawas. (Dont say anything further. I dont want you to draw anymore. From now on, no more drawing.
Get out.)

Lagrama denied the charge against him. He claimed that he was not the only one who entered the drawing area
and that, even if the charge was true, it was a minor infraction to warrant his dismissal. However, everytime he
spoke, Tan shouted Gawas (Get out), leaving him with no other choice but to leave the premises.

Lagrama filed a complaint with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. X of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in Butuan City. He alleged that he had been illegally dismissed and sought reinvestigation
and payment of 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, salary differential, and damages.

Petitioner Tan denied that Lagrama was his employee. He asserted that Lagrama was an independent contractor
who did his work according to his methods, while he (petitioner) was only interested in the result thereof. He
cited the admission of Lagrama during the conferences before the Labor Arbiter that he was paid on a fixed
piece-work basis, i.e., that he was paid for every painting turned out as ad billboard or mural for the pictures
shown in the three theaters, on the basis of a no mural/billboard drawn, no pay policy. He submitted the affidavits
of other cinema owners, an amusement park owner, and those supervising the construction of a church to prove
that the services of Lagrama were contracted by them. He denied having dismissed Lagrama and alleged that it
was the latter who refused to paint for him after he was scolded for his habits.

LAin favor of Respondent.

NLRCfinding Lagrama to be an independent contractor, and for this reason reversing the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lagrama is an independent contractor or an employee of Tan?

HELD: Lagrama is an employee not an independent contractor

Applying Four Fold Test

A. Power of Control - Evidence shows that the Lagrama performed his work as painter and under the
supervision and control of Tan.

Lagrama worked in a designated work area inside the theater of Tan for the use of which petitioner
prescribed rules, which rules included the observance of cleanliness and hygeine and prohibition against
urinating in the work area and any other place other than rest rooms and
Tan's control over Lagrama's work extended not only the use of work area but also the result of Lagrama;s
work and the manner and means by which the work was to be accomplished Lagrama is not an
independent contractor because he did not enjoy independence and freedom from the control and
supervision of Tan and he was subjected to Tan's control over the means and methods by which his work
is to be performed and accomplished

B. Payment of Wages

Lagrama worked for Tan on a fixed piece work basis is of no moment. Payment by result is a method of
compensation and does not define the essence of the relation.

That Lagrama was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive, on the question whether
he was an employee, otherwise Tan would be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his
obligation.

C. Power of Dismissal by Tan stating that he had the right to fire Lagrama, Tan in effect acknowledged
Lagrama to be his employee

D. Power of Selection and Engagement of Employees Tan engaged the services of Lagrama without
the intervention of third party