G.R. No.

138051
JOSE SONZA vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
June 10, 2004

FACTS:

ABS-CBN signed an Agreement with Mel and Jay Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC) represented by Sonza as President and General Manager, where MJMDC
was referred to as “Agent”, agreeing that MJMDC provides services exclusively to ABS-CBN as
talent for radio and television. Sonza would be a co-host for a radio and television program and
be paid a monthly talent fee of Php 310,000.00 for the first year and Php 317,000 for the second
and third year. ABS-CBN paid the talent fees on the 10th and 25th day of the month.

Sonza then resigned and filed a complaint before the DOLE NCR, claiming that ABS-
CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, SILP, 13 th month pay, signing bonus, travel
allowance, and amounts due under the Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP).

ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that there is no employer-employee

relationship between the parties. Meanwhile, ABS-CBN continued to remit Sonza’s monthly
talent fees through his PCIBank Account. The Motion to Dismiss was denied and the Labor
Arbiter ordered them to submit their respective position papers.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Sonza was
an independent contractor, and not an employee of ABS-CBN, and that whatever benefits Sonza
enjoyed, it arose from the specific agreement between the parties and not by reason of an
employer-employee relationship. Sonza appealed to the NLRC but the NLRC affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. Sonza then filed a special action for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals to which the CA dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sonza is an employee of ABS-CBN

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that Sonza is an independent contractor, and not an employee of
ABS-CBN. Case law dictates that for there to be employer-employee relationship, four (4)
elements must be present: (1) Selection and Engagement of the employee; (2) Payment of
Wages; (3) Power of Dismissal; and (4) the so-called “Control Test”.

ABS-CBN indeed engaged Sonza for his unique skills, talent and celebrity status not
possessed by ordinary employees but such is not the only determining factor on whether there is
employer-employee relationship. ABS-CBN also directly paid Sonza his monthly talent fees, not
part of which went to MJMDC. The Court ruled that the talent fees and benefits paid were a
result of the negotiations that led to the Agreement. If Sonza was an employee, there would not
have been a need to stipulate benefits such as “SSS, Medicare xxx, and 13 th month pay” which
the law automatically incorporates in an employer-employee contract.. The Agreement also
stated that either party may terminate the relationship. The Court ruled that for the duration of the
Agreement, even if ABS-CBN suffered severe business loss, they were still contractually
obligated to continue the payment to Sonza. Since there was no case law for the determination of
the control test for radio and television program hosts, the Court relied on foreign case laws. The
Court’s findings were that Sonza was an independent contractor, and that Sonza’s claims were
based on the Agreement, and not the Labor Code, therefore, it is a civil case cognizable by
regular courts, thus the NLRC does not have jurisdiction over such.
G.R. No. 164652
THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING
COMPANY, JOSE JAVIER AND EDWARD TAN
June 8, 2007

FACTS:

On October 2, 1995, under talent contract no. NT95-1805, private respondent Associated
Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired petitioner Thelma Dumpit-Murillo as a newscaster and co-
anchor of Balitang-Balita, an early evening news program. The contract was for a period of 3
months. It renewed under talent contract nos. NT95-1915, NT96-3002, NT98-4984, and NT99-
5649. In addition, petitioner’s services were engaged for the program “Live on Five.” On
September 30, 1999, after 4 years of repeated renewals, petitioner’s talent contract expired. Two
weeks after the expiration of the last contract, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Javier, Vice
President for news and public affairs of ABC, informing the latter that she was still interested in
renewing her contract subject to a salary increase, thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for
work. On November 5, 1999 she wrote Mr. Javier another letter.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the continuous renewal of petitioner’s talent contracts constitute

regularity in the employment status.

HELD:

Yes. An employer-employee relationship was created when the private respondents

started to merely renew the contracts repeatedly 15 times for 4 consecutive years.

Petitioner was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice of having
fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and
compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a
regular employment status.

The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: a.) The
selection and engagement of the employee; b.) The payment of wages; c.) The power of
dismissal; and d.) The employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.

The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had
control over the work or petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work assignments
and payment of petitioner’s wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All these being present,
clearly there existed an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC.

Concerning regular employment, the law provides for 2 kinds of employees, namely: 1.)
Those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer; and 2.) Those who have rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken with respect to the activity in which they are employed. In
other words, regular status arises from either the nature of work of the employee or the duration
of his employment.

The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection

between the particular activity performed by the employee vis-a-vis the usual trade or business of
the employer. This connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work
performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. If the
employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not
continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the
business.