Date post: | 28-Feb-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | joann-christa-bumalay |
View: | 235 times |
Download: | 0 times |
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 1/26
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 138051. June 10, 2004]
JOSE Y. SONZA, petitioner , vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTNGCOR!ORATON, respondent .
D E C S O N
CAR!O, J ."
T#e C$%e
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari [1] assailing the ! "ar#h
1$$$ De#ision[]
of the Court of %ppeals in C%&'(R( S) No( *$1$+ ,is-issing the petitionfile, ./ 0ose ( Son2a 3SON4%5( The Court of %ppeals affir-e, the fin,ings of the
National 6a.or Relations Co--ission 3N6RC57 whi#h affir-e, the 6a.or %r.iters
,is-issal of the #ase for la#8 of 9uris,i#tion(
T#e &$'(%
In "a/ 1$$*7 respon,ent %BS&CBN Broa,#asting Corporation 3%BS&CBN5 signe,
an %gree-ent 3%gree-ent5 with the "el an, 0a/ "anage-ent an, Develop-ent
Corporation 3"0"DC5( %BS&CBN was represente, ./ its #orporate offi#ers while
"0"DC was represente, ./ SON4%7 as )resi,ent an, 'eneral "anager7 an, Car-ela
Tiang#o 3TI%N'CO57 as :V) an, Treasurer( Referre, to in the %gree-ent as %':NT7
"0"DC agree, to provi,e SON4%s servi#es e;#lusivel/ to %BS&CBN as talent for ra,io
an, television( The %gree-ent liste, the servi#es SON4% woul, ren,er to %BS&CBN7 as
follows<
a. Co-host for Mel & Jay radio program, 8:00 to 10:00 a.m., Mondays to
Fridays;
b. Co-host for Mel & Jay teleision program, !:"0 to #:00 p.m., $%ndays.[=]
%BS&CBN agree, to pa/ for SON4%s servi#es a -onthl/ talent fee of )=1+7+++ for
the first /ear an, )=1>7+++ for the se#on, an, thir, /ear of the %gree-ent( %BS&CBN
woul, pa/ the talent fees on the 1+th an, ?th ,a/s of the -onth(
On 1 %pril 1$$!7 SON4% wrote a letter to %BS&CBNs )resi,ent7 :ugenio 6ope2 III7
whi#h rea,s<
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 2/26
ear Mr. 'ope(,
)e *o%ld li+e to all yo%r attention to the greement dated May 1/ entered into by
yo%r goodself on behalf of $-C *ith o%r ompany relatie to o%r talent J2$3 4.
$25.
s yo% are *ell a*are, Mr. $on(a irreoably resigned in ie* of reent eents
onerning his programs and areer. )e onsider these ats of the station iolatie of
the greement and the station as in breah thereof. 6n this onnetion, *e hereby
sere notie of resission of said greement at o%r instane effetie as of date.
Mr. $on(a informed %s that he is *aiing and reno%ning reoery of the remaining
amo%nt stip%lated in paragraph # of the greement b%t reseres the right to see+
reoery of the other benefits %nder said greement.
7han+ yo% for yo%r attention.
ery tr%ly yo%rs,
9$gd.
J2$3 4. $25
resident and <en. Manager [*]
On =+ %pril 1$$!7 SON4% file, a #o-plaint against %BS&CBN .efore the
Depart-ent of 6a.or an, :-plo/-ent7 National Capital Region in @ue2on Cit/( SON4%
#o-plaine, that %BS&CBN ,i, not pa/ his salaries7 separation pa/7 servi#e in#entive
leave pa/7 1=th -onth pa/7 signing .onus7 travel allowan#e an, a-ounts ,ue un,er the
:-plo/ees Sto#8 Option )lan 3:SO)5(
On 1+ 0ul/ 1$$!7 %BS&CBN file, a "otion to Dis-iss on the groun, that no
e-plo/er&e-plo/ee relationship e;iste, .etween the parties( SON4% file, an
Opposition to the -otion on 1$ 0ul/ 1$$!(
"eanwhile7 %BS&CBN #ontinue, to re-it SON4%s -onthl/ talent fees through his
a##ount at )CIBan87 @ue2on %venue Bran#h7 @ue2on Cit/( In 0ul/ 1$$!7 %BS&CBN
opene, a new a##ount with the sa-e .an8 where %BS&CBN ,eposite, SON4%s talent
fees an, other pa/-ents ,ue hi- un,er the %gree-ent(
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 3/26
In his Or,er ,ate, De#e-.er 1$$!7 the 6a.or %r.iter [?] ,enie, the -otion to
,is-iss an, ,ire#te, the parties to file their respe#tive position papers( The 6a.or
%r.iter rule,<
6n this instant ase, omplainant for haing ino+ed a laim that he *as an employee
of respondent ompany %ntil pril 1!, 1= and that he *as not paid ertain laims, itis s%ffiient eno%gh as to onfer >%risdition oer the instant ase in this 2ffie. nd
as to *hether or not s%h laim *o%ld entitle omplainant to reoer %pon the a%ses
of ation asserted is a matter to be resoled only after and as a res%lt of a
hearing. 7h%s, the respondents plea of la+ of employer-employee relationship may be
pleaded only as a matter of defense. 6t behooes %pon it the d%ty to proe that there
really is no employer-employee relationship bet*een it and the omplainant.
The 6a.or %r.iter then #onsi,ere, the #ase su.-itte, for resolution( The parties
su.-itte, their position papers on * Fe.ruar/ 1$$>(
On 11 "ar#h 1$$>7 SON4% file, a Repl/ to Respon,ents )osition )aper with
"otion to :;punge Respon,ents %nne; * an, %nne; ? fro- the Re#or,s( %nne;es *
an, ? are affi,avits of %BS&CBNs witnesses So##oro Vi,anes an, Rolan,o V( Cru2(
These witnesses state, in their affi,avits that the prevailing pra#ti#e in the television
an, .roa,#ast in,ustr/ is to treat talents li8e SON4% as in,epen,ent #ontra#tors(
The 6a.or %r.iter ren,ere, his De#ision ,ate, A 0ul/ 1$$> ,is-issing the #o-plaint
for la#8 of 9uris,i#tion([!] The pertinent parts of the ,e#ision rea, as follows<
? ? ?
)hile hilippine >%rispr%dene has not yet, *ith ertainty, to%hed on the tr%e nat%re
of the ontrat of a talent, it stands to reason that a talent as aboe-desribed annot be
onsidered as an employee by reason of the pe%liar ir%mstanes s%rro%nding the
engagement of his series.
6t m%st be noted that complainant was engaged by respondent by reason of his
peculiar skills and talent as a TV host and a radio broadcaster. Unlike an
ordinary employee, he was free to perform the services he undertook to render inaccordance with his own style. 7he benefits onferred to omplainant %nder the May
1/ greement are ertainly ery m%h higher than those generally gien to
employees. For one, omplainant $on(as monthly talent fees amo%nt to a
staggering "1#,000. Moreoer, his engagement as a talent *as oered by a speifi
ontrat. 'i+e*ise, he *as not bo%nd to render eight 98 ho%rs of *or+ per day as he
*or+ed only for s%h n%mber of ho%rs as may be neessary.
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 4/26
7he fat that per the May 1/ greement omplainant *as aorded some benefits
normally gien to an employee is inonse@%ential. Whatever benefits complainant
enjoyed arose from specific agreement by the parties and not by reason of
employer-employee relationship. s orretly p%t by the respondent, ll these
benefits are merely talent fees and other ontrat%al benefits and sho%ld not bedeemed as salaries, *ages andAor other rem%neration aorded to an employee,
not*ithstanding the nomenlat%re appended to these benefits. propos to this is the
r%le that the term or nomenlat%re gien to a stip%lated benefit is not ontrolling, b%t
the intent of the parties to the greement onferring s%h benefit.
The fact that complainant was made subject to respondents ules and
egulations, likewise, does not detract from the absence of employer-employee
relationship. s held by the $%preme Co%rt, 7he line sho%ld be dra*n bet*een r%les
that merely sere as g%idelines to*ards the ahieement of the m%t%ally desired res%lt
*itho%t ditating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that
ontrol or fi? the methodology and bind or restrit the party hired to the %se of s%h
means. 7he first, *hih aim only to promote the res%lt, reate no employer-employee
relationship %nli+e the seond, *hih address both the res%lt and the means to ahiee
it. 96ns%lar 'ife ss%rane Co., 'td. s. 'BC, et al., <.B. o. 8//8/, oember 1!,
18.
? ? ? 93mphasis s%pplied[>]
SON4% appeale, to the N6RC( On * Fe.ruar/ 1$$A7 the N6RC ren,ere, aDe#ision affir-ing the 6a.or %r.iters ,e#ision( SON4% file, a -otion for
re#onsi,eration7 whi#h the N6RC ,enie, in its Resolution ,ate, = 0ul/ 1$$A(
On ! O#to.er 1$$A7 SON4% file, a spe#ial #ivil a#tion for #ertiorari .efore the Court
of %ppeals assailing the ,e#ision an, resolution of the N6RC( On ! "ar#h 1$$$7 the
Court of %ppeals ren,ere, a De#ision ,is-issing the #ase( [A]
en#e7 this petition(
T#e Ru)*n+% o (#e NRC $n Cou/( o Ae$)%
The Court of %ppeals affir-e, the N6RCs fin,ing that no e-plo/er&e-plo/ee
relationship e;iste, .etween SON4% an, %BS&CBN( %,opting the N6RCs ,e#ision7 the
appellate #ourt uote, the following fin,ings of the N6RC<
? ? ? the May 1/ greement *ill readily reeal that MJMC entered into the
ontrat merely as an agent of omplainant $on(a, the prinipal. y all indiation and
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 5/26
as the la* p%ts it, the at of the agent is the at of the prinipal itself. 7his fat is made
parti%larly tr%e in this ase, as admittedly MJMC is a management ompany
deoted e?l%siely to managing the areers of Mr. $on(a and his broadast partner,
Mrs. Carmela C. 7iango. 92pposition to Motion to ismiss
Clearly, the relations of prinipal and agent only ar%es bet*een omplainant $on(a
and MJMC, and not bet*een $-C and MJMC. 7his is lear from the
proisions of the May 1/ greement *hih speifially referred to MJMC as the
<37. s a matter of fat, *hen omplainant herein %nilaterally resinded said
May 1/ greement, it *as MJMC *hih iss%ed the notie of resission in behalf
of Mr. $on(a, *ho himself signed the same in his apaity as resident.
Moreoer, preio%s ontrats bet*een Mr. $on(a and $-C reeal the fat that
historially, the parties to the said agreements are $-C and Mr. $on(a. nd it is
only in the May 1/ greement, *hih is the latest greement e?e%ted bet*een$-C and Mr. $on(a, that MJMC fig%red in the said greement as the agent of
Mr. $on(a.
)e find it erroneo%s to assert that MJMC is a mere labor-only ontrator of $-
C s%h that there e?istsD employer-employee relationship bet*een the latter and
Mr. $on(a. 2n the ontrary, )e find it ind%bitable, that MJMC is an agent, not of
$-C, b%t of the talentAontrator Mr. $on(a, as e?pressly admitted by the latter
and MJMC in the May 1/ greement.
6t may not be amiss to state that >%risdition oer the instant ontroersy indeed
belongs to the reg%lar o%rts, the same being in the nat%re of an ation for alleged
breah of ontrat%al obligation on the part of respondent-appellee. s s@%arely
apparent from omplainant-appellants osition aper, his laims for ompensation for
series, 1"th month pay, signing bon%s and trael allo*ane against respondent-
appellee are not based on the 'abor Code b%t rather on the proisions of the May
1/ greement, *hile his laims for proeeds %nder $to+ %rhase greement are
based on the latter. portion of the osition aper of omplainant-appellant bears
per%sal:
Ender the May 1/ greementD *ith respondent $-C, the latter ontrat%ally
bo%nd itself to pay omplainant a signing bon%s onsisting of shares of sto+s*ith
F63 EB3 72E$ 3$2$ 9!00,000.00.
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 6/26
$imilarly, omplainant is also entitled to be paid 1" th month pay based on an amo%nt
not lo*er than the amo%nt he *as reeiing prior to effetiity of 9the greement.
Ender paragraph of 9the May 1/ greement, omplainant is entitled to a
omm%table trael benefit amo%nting to at least 2ne %ndred Fifty 7ho%sand esos
91!0,000.00 per year.
7h%s, it is preisely bea%se of omplainant-appellants o*n reognition of the fat
that his ontrat%al relations *ith $-C are fo%nded on the e* Ciil Code,
rather than the 'abor Code, that instead of merely resigning from $-C,
omplainant-appellant sered %pon the latter a notie of resission of greement *ith
the station, per his letter dated pril 1, 1=, *hih asserted that instead of referring
to %npaid employee benefits, he is *aiing and reno%ning reoery of the remaining
amo%nt stip%lated in paragraph # of the greement b%t reseres the right to s%h
reoery of the other benefits %nder said greement. 9nne? " of the respondent$-Cs Motion to ismiss dated J%ly 10, 1=.
3idently, it is preisely by reason of the alleged iolation of the May 1/
greement andAor the $to+ %rhase greement by respondent-appellee that
omplainant-appellant filed his omplaint.Complainant-appellants laims being
anhored on the alleged breah of ontrat on the part of respondent-appellee, the
same an be resoled by referene to iil la* and not to labor la*. Conse@%ently,
they are *ithin the realm of iil la* and, th%s, lie *ith the reg%lar o%rts. s held in
the ase of ai-Chi 3letronis Man%fat%ring s. illarama, G"8 $CB G=#, G1 oember 1/, an action for breach of contractual obligation is intrinsically a
civil dispute.[$] 93mphasis s%pplied
The Court of %ppeals rule, that the e;isten#e of an e-plo/er&e-plo/ee relationship
.etween SON4% an, %BS&CBN is a fa#tual uestion that is within the 9uris,i#tion of the
N6RC to resolve([1+] % spe#ial #ivil a#tion for #ertiorari e;ten,s onl/ to issues of want or
e;#ess of 9uris,i#tion of the N6RC([11] Su#h a#tion #annot #over an inuir/ into the
#orre#tness of the evaluation of the evi,en#e whi#h serve, as .asis of the N6RCs
#on#lusion( [1] The Court of %ppeals a,,e, that it #oul, not re&e;a-ine the parties
evi,en#e an, su.stitute the fa#tual fin,ings of the N6RC with its own([1=]
T#e %%ue
In assailing the ,e#ision of the Court of %ppeals7 SON4% #onten,s that<
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 7/26
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 8/26
power to #ontrol the e-plo/ee on the -eans an, -etho,s ./ whi#h the wor8 is
a##o-plishe,( [1A] The last ele-ent7 the so&#alle, 'on(/o) (e%(7 is the -ost i-portant
ele-ent( [1$]
A. Selection and Engagement of Employee
%BS&CBN engage, SON4%s servi#es to #o&host its television an, ra,io progra-s
.e#ause of SON4%s pe#uliar s8ills7 talent an, #ele.rit/ status( SON4% #onten,s that
the ,is#retion use, ./ respon,ent in spe#ifi#all/ sele#ting an, hiring #o-plainant over
other .roa,#asters of possi.l/ si-ilar e;perien#e an, ualifi#ation as #o-plainant
.elies respon,ents #lai- of in,epen,ent #ontra#torship(
In,epen,ent #ontra#tors often present the-selves to possess uniue s8ills7
e;pertise or talent to ,istinguish the- fro- or,inar/ e-plo/ees( The spe#ifi# sele#tion
an, hiring of SON4%7because of his unique skills talent and celebrity status not
possessed by ordinary employees7 is a #ir#u-stan#e in,i#ative7 .ut not #on#lusive7of an in,epen,ent #ontra#tual relationship( If SON4% ,i, not possess su#h uniue s8ills7
talent an, #ele.rit/ status7 %BS&CBN woul, not have entere, into the %gree-ent with
SON4% .ut woul, have hire, hi- through its personnel ,epart-ent 9ust li8e an/ other
e-plo/ee(
In an/ event7 the -etho, of sele#ting an, engaging SON4% ,oes not #on#lusivel/
,eter-ine his status( e -ust #onsi,er all the #ir#u-stan#es of the relationship7 with
the #ontrol test .eing the -ost i-portant ele-ent(
!. "ayment of #ages
%BS&CBN ,ire#tl/ pai, SON4% his -onthl/ talent fees with no part of his fees going
to "0"DC( SON4% asserts that this -o,e of fee pa/-ent shows that he was an
e-plo/ee of %BS&CBN( SON4% also points out that %BS&CBN grante, hi- .enefits an,
privileges whi#h he woul, not have en9o/e, if he were trul/ the su.9e#t of a vali, 9o.
#ontra#t(
%ll the talent fees an, .enefits pai, to SON4% were the result of negotiations that
le, to the %gree-ent( If SON4% were %BS&CBNs e-plo/ee7 there woul, .e no nee, for
the parties to stipulate on .enefits su#h as SSS7 "e,i#are7 ; ; ; an, 1= th -onth
pa/[+]
whi#h the law auto-ati#all/ in#orporates into ever/ e-plo/er&e-plo/ee #ontra#t([1] hatever .enefits SON4% en9o/e, arose fro- #ontra#t an, not .e#ause of an
e-plo/er&e-plo/ee relationship([]
SON4%s talent fees7 a-ounting to )=1>7+++ -onthl/ in the se#on, an, thir, /ear7
are so huge an, out of the or,inar/ that the/ in,i#ate -ore an in,epen,ent #ontra#tual
relationship rather than an e-plo/er&e-plo/ee relationship( %BS&CBN agree, to pa/
SON4% su#h huge talent fees pre#isel/ .e#ause of SON4%s uniue s8ills7 talent an,
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 9/26
#ele.rit/ status not possesse, ./ or,inar/ e-plo/ees( O.viousl/7 SON4% a#ting alone
possesse, enough .argaining power to ,e-an, an, re#eive su#h huge talent fees for
his servi#es( The power to .argain talent fees wa/ a.ove the salar/ s#ales of or,inar/
e-plo/ees is a #ir#u-stan#e in,i#ative7 .ut not #on#lusive7 of an in,epen,ent
#ontra#tual relationship(
The pa/-ent of talent fees ,ire#tl/ to SON4% an, not to "0"DC ,oes not negate
the status of SON4% as an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor( The parties e;pressl/ agree, on
su#h -o,e of pa/-ent( n,er the %gree-ent7 "0"DC is the %':NT of SON4%7 to
who- "0"DC woul, have to turn over an/ talent fee a##ruing un,er the %gree-ent(
C. "o$er of %ismissal
For violation of an/ provision of the %gree-ent7 either part/ -a/ ter-inate their
relationship( SON4% faile, to show that %BS&CBN #oul, ter-inate his servi#es on
groun,s other than .rea#h of #ontra#t7 su#h as retren#h-ent to prevent losses asprovi,e, un,er la.or laws([=]
During the life of the %gree-ent7 %BS&CBN agree, to pa/ SON4%s talent fees as
long as %':NT an, 0a/ Son2a shall faithfull/ an, #o-pletel/ perfor- ea#h #on,ition of
this %gree-ent([*] :ven if it suffere, severe .usiness losses7 %BS&CBN #oul, not
retren#h SON4% .e#ause %BS&CBN re-aine, o.ligate, to pa/ SON4%s talent fees
,uring the life of the %gree-ent( This #ir#u-stan#e in,i#ates an in,epen,ent
#ontra#tual relationship .etween SON4% an, %BS&CBN(
SON4% a,-its that even after %BS&CBN #ease, .roa,#asting his progra-s7 %BS&
CBN still pai, hi- his talent fees( )lainl/7 %BS&CBN a,here, to its un,erta8ing in the %gree-ent to #ontinue pa/ing SON4%s talent fees ,uring the re-aining life of the
%gree-ent even if %BS&CBN #an#elle, SON4%s progra-s through no fault of SON4%([?]
SON4% assails the 6a.or %r.iters interpretation of his res#ission of the %gree-ent
as an a,-ission that he is not an e-plo/ee of %BS&CBN( The 6a.or %r.iter state, that
if it were true that #o-plainant was reall/ an e-plo/ee7 he woul, -erel/ resign7 instea,(
SON4% ,i, a#tuall/ resign fro- %BS&CBN .ut he also7 as presi,ent of "0"DC7
res#in,e, the %gree-ent(SON4%s letter #learl/ .ears this out( [!] owever7 the -anner
./ whi#h SON4% ter-inate, his relationship with %BS&CBN is i--aterial( hether
SON4% res#in,e, the %gree-ent or resigne, fro- wor8 ,oes not ,eter-ine his statusas e-plo/ee or in,epen,ent #ontra#tor(
%. "o$er of Control
Sin#e there is no lo#al pre#e,ent on whether a ra,io an, television progra- host is
an e-plo/ee or an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor7 we refer to foreign #ase law in anal/2ing the
present #ase( The nite, States Court of %ppeals7 First Cir#uit7 re#entl/ hel, in Alberty&
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 10/26
'le( v. Corporacin %e "uerto )ico "ara *a %ifusin "blica +#I"), [>] that a television
progra- host is an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor( e uote the following fin,ings of
the (S( #ourt<
$eeral fators faor lassifying lberty as an independent ontrator. !irst, a
television actress is a skilled position re"uiring talent and training not availableon-the-job. ? ? ? 6n this regard, lberty possesses a masters degree in p%bli
omm%niations and >o%rnalism; is trained in dane, singing, and modeling; ta%ght
*ith the drama department at the Eniersity of %erto Bio; and ated in seeral
theater and teleision prod%tions prior to her affiliation *ith esde Mi
%eblo. #econd, $lberty provided the tools and instrumentalities necessary for
her to perform. $peifially, she proided, or obtained sponsors to proide, the
ost%mes, >e*elry, and other image-related s%pplies and series neessary for her
appearane. lberty disp%tes that this fator faors independent ontrator stat%s
bea%se )6B proided the e@%ipment neessary to tape the sho*. lbertys arg%mentis misplaed. 7he e@%ipment neessary for lberty to ond%t her job as host of
esde Mi %eblo related to her appearane on the sho*.2thers proided e@%ipment
for filming and prod%ing the sho*, b%t these *ere not the primary tools that lberty
%sed to perform her parti%lar f%ntion. 6f *e aepted this arg%ment, independent
ontrators o%ld neer *or+ on ollaboratie pro>ets bea%se other indiid%als often
proide the e@%ipment re@%ired for different aspets of the ollaboration. ? ? ?
Third, W%& could not assign $lberty work in addition to filming 'esde (i
&ueblo. lbertys ontrats *ith )6B speifially proided that )6B hired her professional series as ostess for the rogram esde Mi %eblo. 7here is no
eidene that )6B assigned lberty tas+s in addition to *or+ related to these
tapings. ? ? ?[A] 93mphasis s%pplied
%ppl/ing the 'on(/o) (e%( to the present #ase7 we fin, that SON4% is not an
e-plo/ee .ut an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor( The #ontrol test is the o%( *o/($n( test
our #ourts appl/ in ,istinguishing an e-plo/ee fro- an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor( [$] This
test is .ase, on the e;tent of #ontrol the hirer e;er#ises over a wor8er( The greater the
supervision an, #ontrol the hirer e;er#ises7 the -ore li8el/ the wor8er is ,ee-e, an
e-plo/ee( The #onverse hol,s true as well the less #ontrol the hirer e;er#ises7 the -oreli8el/ the wor8er is #onsi,ere, an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor( [=+]
First 7 SON4% #onten,s that %BS&CBN e;er#ise, #ontrol over the -eans an,
-etho,s of his wor8(
SON4%s argu-ent is -ispla#e,( %BS&CBN engage, SON4%s servi#es spe#ifi#all/
to #o&host the "el G 0a/ progra-s( %BS&CBN ,i, not assign an/ other wor8 to
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 11/26
SON4%( To perfor- his wor87 SON4% onl/ nee,e, his s8ills an, talent( ow SON4%
,elivere, his lines7 appeare, on television7 an, soun,e, on ra,io were outsi,e %BS&
CBNs #ontrol( SON4% ,i, not have to ren,er eight hours of wor8 per ,a/( The
%gree-ent reuire, SON4% to atten, onl/ rehearsals an, tapings of the shows7 as well
as pre& an, post&pro,u#tion staff -eetings( [=1] %BS&CBN #oul, not ,i#tate the #ontents of
SON4%s s#ript( owever7 the %gree-ent prohi.ite, SON4% fro- #riti#i2ing in his shows %BS&CBN or its interests([=] The #lear i-pli#ation is that SON4% ha, a free han, on what
to sa/ or ,is#uss in his shows provi,e, he ,i, not atta#8 %BS&CBN or its interests(
e fin, that %BS&CBN was not involve, in the a#tual perfor-an#e that pro,u#e,
the finishe, pro,u#t of SON4%s wor8([==] %BS&CBN ,i, not instru#t SON4% how to
perfor- his 9o.(%BS&CBN -erel/ reserve, the right to -o,if/ the progra- for-at an,
airti-e s#he,ule for -ore effe#tive progra--ing( [=*] %BS&CBNs sole #on#ern was the
ualit/ of the shows an, their stan,ing in the ratings( Clearl/7 %BS&CBN ,i, not e;er#ise
#ontrol over the -eans an, -etho,s of perfor-an#e of SON4%s wor8(
SON4% #lai-s that %BS&CBNs power not to .roa,#ast his shows proves %BS&CBNs
power over the -eans an, -etho,s of the perfor-an#e of his wor8( %lthough %BS&CBN
,i, have the option not to .roa,#ast SON4%s show7 %BS&CBN was still o.ligate, to pa/
SON4%s talent fees( Thus7 even if %BS&CBN was #o-pletel/ ,issatisfie, with the
-eans an, -etho,s of SON4%s perfor-an#e of his wor87 or even with the ualit/ or
pro,u#t of his wor87 %BS&CBN #oul, not ,is-iss or even ,is#ipline SON4%( %ll that
%BS&CBN #oul, ,o is not to .roa,#ast SON4%s show .ut %BS&CBN -ust still pa/ his
talent fees in full([=?]
Clearl/7 %BS&CBNs right not to .roa,#ast SON4%s show7 .ur,ene, as it was ./ the
o.ligation to #ontinue pa/ing in full SON4%s talent fees7 ,i, not a-ount to #ontrol over
the -eans an, -etho,s of the perfor-an#e of SON4%s wor8( %BS&CBN #oul, not
ter-inate or ,is#ipline SON4% even if the -eans an, -etho,s of perfor-an#e of his
wor8 & how he ,elivere, his lines an, appeare, on television & ,i, not -eet %BS&CBNs
approval( This proves that %BS&CBNs #ontrol was li-ite, onl/ to the result of SON4%s
wor87 whether to .roa,#ast the final pro,u#t or not( In either #ase7 %BS&CBN -ust still
pa/ SON4%s talent fees in full until the e;pir/ of the %gree-ent(
In 'aughan et al. v. #arner et al.7[=!] the nite, States Cir#uit Court of %ppeals
rule, that vau,eville perfor-ers were in,epen,ent #ontra#tors although the
-anage-ent reserve, the right to ,elete o.9e#tiona.le features in their shows( Sin#ethe -anage-ent ,i, not have #ontrol over the -anner of perfor-an#e of the s8ills of
the artists7 it #oul, onl/ #ontrol the result of the wor8 ./ ,eleting o.9e#tiona.le features([=>]
SON4% further #onten,s that %BS&CBN e;er#ise, #ontrol over his wor8 ./
suppl/ing all euip-ent an, #rew( No ,ou.t7 %BS&CBN supplie, the euip-ent7 #rew
an, airti-e nee,e, to .roa,#ast the "el G 0a/ progra-s( owever7 the euip-ent7
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 12/26
#rew an, airti-e are not the tools an, instru-entalities SON4% nee,e, to perfor- his
9o.( hat SON4% prin#ipall/ nee,e, were his talent or s8ills an, the #ostu-es
ne#essar/ for his appearan#e( [=A] :ven though %BS&CBN provi,e, SON4% with the pla#e
of wor8 an, the ne#essar/ euip-ent7 SON4% was still an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor sin#e
%BS&CBN ,i, not supervise an, #ontrol his wor8( %BS&CBNs sole #on#ern was for
SON4% to ,ispla/ his talent ,uring the airing of the progra-s( [=$]
% ra,io .roa,#ast spe#ialist who wor8s un,er -ini-al supervision is an
in,epen,ent #ontra#tor([*+] SON4%s wor8 as television an, ra,io progra- host reuire,
spe#ial s8ills an, talent7 whi#h SON4% a,-itte,l/ possesses( The re#or,s ,o not show
that %BS&CBN e;er#ise, an/ supervision an, #ontrol over how SON4% utili2e, his s8ills
an, talent in his shows(
Second 7 SON4% urges us to rule that he was %BS&CBNs e-plo/ee .e#ause %BS&
CBN su.9e#te, hi- to its rules an, stan,ar,s of perfor-an#e( SON4% #lai-s that this
in,i#ates %BS&CBNs #ontrol not onl/ [over] his -anner of wor8 .ut also the ualit/ of hiswor8(
The %gree-ent stipulates that SON4% shall a.i,e with the rules an, stan,ar,s of
perfor-an#e 'oe/*n+ ($)en(%[*1] of %BS&CBN( The %gree-ent ,oes not reuire SON4%
to #o-pl/ with the rules an, stan,ar,s of perfor-an#e pres#ri.e, for e-plo/ees of
%BS&CBN( The #o,e of #on,u#t i-pose, on SON4% un,er the %gree-ent refers to the
Television an, Ra,io Co,e of the Hapisanan ng -ga Broa,#aster sa )ilipinas 3HB)57
whi#h has .een a,opte, ./ the CO")%N 3%BS&CBN5 as its Co,e of :thi#s( [*] The
HB) #o,e applies to .roa,#asters7 not to e-plo/ees of ra,io an, television
stations( Broa,#asters are not ne#essaril/ e-plo/ees of ra,io an, television
stations( Clearl/7 the rules an, stan,ar,s of perfor-an#e referre, to in the %gree-ent
are those appli#a.le to talents an, not to e-plo/ees of %BS&CBN(
In an/ event7 not all rules i-pose, ./ the hiring part/ on the hire, part/ in,i#ate that
the latter is an e-plo/ee of the for-er( [*=] In this #ase7 SON4% faile, to show that these
rules #ontrolle, his perfor-an#e( e fin, that these general rules are
-erel/ +u*e)*ne% towar,s the a#hieve-ent of the -utuall/ ,esire, result7 whi#h are
top&rating television an, ra,io progra-s that #o-pl/ with stan,ar,s of the in,ustr/( e
have rule, that<
F%rther, not eery form of ontrol that a party reseres to himself oer the ond%t ofthe other party in relation to the series being rendered may be aorded the effet of
establishing an employer-employee relationship. 7he fats of this ase fall s@%arely
*ith the ase of 6ns%lar 'ife ss%rane Co., 'td. s. 'BC. 6n said ase, *e held that:
'ogially, the line sho%ld be dra*n bet*een r%les that merely sere as g%idelines
to*ards the ahieement of the m%t%ally desired res%lt *itho%t ditating the means or
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 13/26
methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that ontrol or fi? the methodology
and bind or restrit the party hired to the %se of s%h means. 7he first, *hih aim only
to promote the res%lt, reate no employer-employee relationship %nli+e the seond,
*hih address both the res%lt and the means %sed to ahiee it. [**]
The 'aughan #ase also hel, that one #oul, still .e an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor
although the hirer reserve, #ertain supervision to insure the attain-ent of the ,esire,
result( The hirer7 however7 -ust not ,eprive the one hire, fro- perfor-ing his servi#es
a##or,ing to his own initiative( [*?]
Lastly 7 SON4% insists that the e;#lusivit/ #lause in the %gree-ent is the -ost
e;tre-e for- of #ontrol whi#h %BS&CBN e;er#ise, over hi-(
This argu-ent is futile( Being an e;#lusive talent ,oes not ./ itself -ean that
SON4% is an e-plo/ee of %BS&CBN( :ven an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor #an vali,l/
provi,e his servi#es e;#lusivel/ to the hiring part/( In the .roa,#ast in,ustr/7 e;#lusivit/is not ne#essaril/ the sa-e as #ontrol(
The hiring of e;#lusive talents is a wi,esprea, an, a##epte, pra#ti#e in the
entertain-ent in,ustr/([*!] This pra#ti#e is not ,esigne, to #ontrol the -eans an,
-etho,s of wor8 of the talent7 .ut si-pl/ to prote#t the invest-ent of the .roa,#ast
station( The .roa,#ast station nor-all/ spen,s su.stantial a-ounts of -one/7 ti-e an,
effort in .uil,ing up its talents as well as the progra-s the/ appear in an, thus e;pe#ts
that sai, talents re-ain e;#lusive with the station for a #o--ensurate perio, of ti-e([*>] Nor-all/7 a -u#h higher fee is pai, to talents who agree to wor8 e;#lusivel/ for a
parti#ular ra,io or television station( In short7 the huge talent fees partiall/ #o-pensatesfor e;#lusivit/7 as in the present #ase(
-J-%C as Agent of S/0A
SON4% protests the 6a.or %r.iters fin,ing that he is a talent of "0"DC7 whi#h
#ontra#te, out his servi#es to %BS&CBN( The 6a.or %r.iter rule, that as a talent of
"0"DC7 SON4% is not an e-plo/ee of %BS&CBN( SON4% insists that "0"DC is a
la.or&onl/ #ontra#tor an, %BS&CBN is his e-plo/er(
In a la.or&onl/ #ontra#t7 there are three parties involve,< 315 the la.or&onl/
#ontra#torE 35 the e-plo/ee who is ostensi.l/ un,er the e-plo/ of the la.or&onl/
#ontra#torE an, 3=5 the prin#ipal who is ,ee-e, the real e-plo/er( n,er this
s#he-e7 (#e )$o/-on) 'on(/$'(o/ *% (#e $+en( o (#e /*n'*$). The law -a8es the
prin#ipal responsi.le to the e-plo/ees of the la.or&onl/ #ontra#tor as if the prin#ipal
itself ,ire#tl/ hire, or e-plo/e, the e-plo/ees( [*A] These #ir#u-stan#es are not present
in this #ase(
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 14/26
There are essentiall/ onl/ two parties involve, un,er the %gree-ent7 na-el/7
SON4% an, %BS&CBN( "0"DC -erel/ a#te, as SON4%s agent( The %gree-ent
e;pressl/ states that "0"DC a#te, as the %':NT of SON4%( The re#or,s ,o not show
that "0"DC a#te, as %BS&CBNs agent( "0"DC7 whi#h stan,s for "el an, 0a/
"anage-ent an, Develop-ent Corporation7 is a #orporation organi2e, an, owne, ./
SON4% an, TI%N'CO( The )resi,ent an, 'eneral "anager of "0"DC is SON4%hi-self( It is a.sur, to hol, that "0"DC7 whi#h is owne,7 #ontrolle,7 hea,e, an,
-anage, ./ SON4%7 a#te, as agent of %BS&CBN in entering into the %gree-ent with
SON4%7 who hi-self is represente, ./ "0"DC( That woul, -a8e "0"DC the agent of
.oth %BS&CBN an, SON4%(
%s SON4% a,-its7 "0"DC is a -anage-ent #o-pan/ ,evote, e')u%*e) to
-anaging the #areers of SON4% an, his .roa,#ast partner7 TI%N'CO( "0"DC is not
engage, in an/ other .usiness7 not even 9o. #ontra#ting( "0"DC ,oes not have an/
other fun#tion apart fro- a#ting as agent of SON4% or TI%N'CO to pro-ote their
#areers in the .roa,#ast an, television in,ustr/([*$]
"olicy Instruction /o. 12
SON4% argues that )oli#/ Instru#tion No( *+ issue, ./ then "inister of 6a.or Blas
Ople on A 0anuar/ 1$>$ finall/ settle, the status of wor8ers in the .roa,#ast
in,ustr/( n,er this poli#/7 the t/pes of e-plo/ees in the .roa,#ast in,ustr/ are the
station an, progra- e-plo/ees(
)oli#/ Instru#tion No( *+ is a -ere e;e#utive issuan#e whi#h ,oes not have the
for#e an, effe#t of law( There is no legal presu-ption that )oli#/ Instru#tion No( *+
,eter-ines SON4%s status( % -ere e;e#utive issuan#e #annot e;#lu,e in,epen,ent
#ontra#tors fro- the #lass of servi#e provi,ers to the .roa,#ast in,ustr/( The
#lassifi#ation of wor8ers in the .roa,#ast in,ustr/ into onl/ two groups un,er )oli#/
Instru#tion No( *+ is not .in,ing on this Court7 espe#iall/ when the #lassifi#ation has no
.asis either in law or in fa#t(
Affidavits of A!S&C!/s #itnesses
SON4% also faults the 6a.or %r.iter for a,-itting the affi,avits of So#orro Vi,anes
an, Rolan,o Cru2 without giving his #ounsel the opportunit/ to #ross&e;a-ine these
witnesses(SON4% .ran,s these witnesses as in#o-petent to attest on the prevailingpra#ti#e in the ra,io an, television in,ustr/( SON4% views the affi,avits of these
witnesses as -islea,ing an, irrelevant(
hile SON4% faile, to #ross&e;a-ine %BS&CBNs witnesses7 he was never
prevente, fro- ,en/ing or refuting the allegations in the affi,avits( The 6a.or %r.iter
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 15/26
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 16/26
In,ivi,uals with spe#ial s8ills7 e;pertise or talent en9o/ the free,o- to offer their
servi#es as in,epen,ent #ontra#tors( The right to life an, livelihoo, guarantees this
free,o- to #ontra#t as in,epen,ent #ontra#tors( The right of la.or to se#urit/ of tenure
#annot operate to ,eprive an in,ivi,ual7 possesse, with spe#ial s8ills7 e;pertise an,
talent7 of his right to #ontra#t as an in,epen,ent #ontra#tor( %n in,ivi,ual li8e an artist or
talent has a right to ren,er his servi#es without an/ one #ontrolling the -eans an,-etho,s ./ whi#h he perfor-s his art or #raft( This Court will not interpret the right of
la.or to se#urit/ of tenure to #o-pel artists an, talents to ren,er their servi#es onl/ as
e-plo/ees( If ra,io an, television progra- hosts #an ren,er their servi#es onl/ as
e-plo/ees7 the station owners an, -anagers #an ,i#tate to the ra,io an, television
hosts what the/ sa/ in their shows( This is not #on,u#ive to free,o- of the press(
%ifferent 3a4 3reatment of 3alents and !roadcasters
The National Internal Revenue Co,e 3NIRC5[?*] in relation to Repu.li# %#t No( >>1!7[??]
as a-en,e, ./ Repu.li# %#t No( A*17[?!]
treats talents7 television an, ra,io.roa,#asters ,ifferentl/( n,er the NIRC7 these professionals are su.9e#t to the 1+
value&a,,e, ta; 3V%T5 on servi#es the/ ren,er( :;e-pte, fro- the V%T are those un,er
an e-plo/er&e-plo/ee relationship( [?>] This ,ifferent ta; treat-ent a##or,e, to talents
an, .roa,#asters .olters our #on#lusion that the/ are in,epen,ent #ontra#tors7 provi,e,
all the .asi# ele-ents of a #ontra#tual relationship are present as in this #ase(
/ature of S/0As Claims
SON4% see8s the re#over/ of allege,l/ unpai, talent fees7 1=th -onth pa/7
separation pa/7 servi#e in#entive leave7 signing .onus7 travel allowan#e7 an, a-ounts
,ue un,er the :-plo/ee Sto#8 Option )lan( e agree with the fin,ings of the 6a.or
%r.iter an, the Court of %ppeals that SON4%s #lai-s are $)) $%e on (#e 6$ 1774
A+/eeen( $n %(o' o(*on )$n, $n no( on (#e $o/ Coe. Clearl/7 the present
#ase ,oes not #all for an appli#ation of the 6a.or Co,e provisions .ut an interpretation
an, i-ple-entation of the "a/ 1$$* %gree-ent( In effe#t7 SON4%s #ause of a#tion is
for .rea#h of #ontra#t whi#h is intrinsi#all/ a #ivil ,ispute #ogni2a.le ./ the regular
#ourts([?A]
9:ERE&ORE7 we D:N the petition( The assaile, De#ision of the Court of
%ppeals ,ate, ! "ar#h 1$$$ in C%&'(R( S) No( *$1$+ is %FFIR":D( Costs against
petitioner(
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, an, !c"na,
JJ., #on#ur .
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 17/26
#)*+' '%V%#%+T)($ 'U(&%T-(U%+,
etitioner,
- ers%s -
/.. o. 012134
resent:
IE6$EM6<, J., Chairperson,
CB62,
CB62 M2B'3$,
76<, and
3'$C2, JB., JJ .
*+UT +! $&&)$#,
$##+*%$T)' 5+$'*$#T%/
*+(&$6, 7+#) 7$V%) $'
)'W$' T$,
Bespondents.
rom%lgated:
J%ne 8, G00#
8- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -8
')*%#%+
9U%#U(5%/, J.:
7his petition see+s to reerse and set aside both the eision:0; dated Jan%ary
"0, G00/ of the Co%rt of ppeals in C-<.B. $ o. ="1G! and its
Besol%tion:4; dated J%ne G", G00/ denying the motion for reonsideration. 7he
Co%rt of ppeals had oert%rned the Besol%tion:<; dated %g%st "0, G000 of the
ational 'abor Belations Commission 9'BC r%ling that petitioner *as illegally
dismissed.
7he fats of the ase are as follo*s:
2n 2tober G, 1!, %nder 7alent Contrat o. 7!-180!,:2; priate
respondent ssoiated roadasting Company 9C hired petitioner 7helma
%mpit-M%rillo as a ne*saster and o-anhor for Balitang-Balita, an early
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 18/26
eening ne*s program. 7he ontrat *as for a period of three months. 6t *as
rene*ed %nder 7alent Contrats os. 7!-11!, 7=-"00G, 78-/8/ and
7-!=/.:3; 6n addition, petitioners series *ere engaged for the program Live
on Five. 2n $eptember "0, 1, after fo%r years of repeated rene*als, petitioners
talent ontrat e?pired. 7*o *ee+s after the e?piration of the last ontrat, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Jaier, ie resident for e*s and %bli
ffairs of C, informing the latter that she *as still interested in rene*ing her
ontrat s%b>et to a salary inrease. 7hereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for
*or+. 2noember !, 1, she *rote Mr. Jaier another letter,:1; *hih *e @%ote
erbatim:
? ? ? ?
ear Mr. Jaier:
2n 2tober G0, 1, 6 *rote yo% a letter in ans*er to yo%r @%ery by
*ay of a marginal note *hat terms and onditions in response to my first
letter dated 2tober 1", 1. 7o date, or for more than fifteen 91! days
sine then, 6 hae not reeied any formal *ritten reply. ???
6n ie* hereof, sho%ld 6 not reeie any formal response from yo%
%ntil Monday, oember 8, 1, 6 *ill deem it as a onstr%tie
dismissal of my series.
? ? ? ?
month later, petitioner sent a demand letter :=; to C, demanding: 9a
reinstatement to her former position; 9b payment of %npaid *ages for series
rendered from $eptember 1 to 2tober G0, 1 and f%ll ba+*ages; 9 payment
of 1"th month pay, aationAsi+Aserie inentie leaes and other monetary
benefits d%e to a reg%lar employee starting Marh "1, 1=. C replied that a
he+ oering petitioners talent fees for $eptember 1= to 2tober G0, 1 had
been proessed and prepared, b%t that the other laims of petitioner had no basis in
fat or in la*.
2n eember G0, 1, petitioner filed a omplaint:>; against C, Mr. Jaier
and Mr. 3d*ard 7an, for illegal onstr%tie dismissal, nonpayment of salaries,
oertime pay, premi%m pay, separation pay, holiday pay, serie inentie leae pay,
aationAsi+ leaes and 1"th month pay in 'BC-CB Case o. "0-1G-008!-
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 19/26
. $he li+e*ise demanded payment for moral, e?emplary and at%al damages, as
*ell as for attorneys fees.
7he parties agreed to s%bmit the ase for resol%tion after settlement failed
d%ring the mandatory onfereneAoniliation. 2n Marh G, G000, the 'abor rbiter dismissed the omplaint.:?;
2n appeal, the 'BC reersed the 'abor rbiter in a Besol%tion dated %g%st
"0, G000. 7he 'BC held that an employer-employee relationship e?isted bet*een
petitioner and C; that the s%b>et talent ontrat *as oid; that the petitioner *as a
reg%lar employee illegally dismissed; and that she *as entitled to reinstatement and
ba+*ages or separation pay, aside from 1"th month pay and serie inentie leae
pay, moral and e?emplary damages and attorneys fees. 6t held as follo*s:
W))!+), the eision of the rbiter dated G Marh
G000 is hereby )V)#)'@#)T $#%') and a )W
+) prom%lgated:
1 delaring respondents to hae illegally dismissed omplainant
from her reg%lar *or+ therein and th%s, ordering them to reinstate her in
her former position *itho%t loss of seniority rightsD and other priileges
and to pay her f%ll ba+*ages, inl%sie of allo*anes and other
benefits, inl%ding 1"th month pay based on her said latest rate
of G8,000.00Amo. from the date of her illegal dismissal on G1 2tober
1 %p to finality hereof, or at omplainants option, to pay her
separation pay of one 91 month pay per year of serie based on said
latest monthly rate, re+oned from date of hire on "0 $eptember 1!
%ntil finality hereof;
G to pay omplainants ar%ed $6' $erie 6nentie 'eae
ayD of ! days pay per year and 1" th month pay for the years 1, 18
and 1# of 1,G"=.00 and 8/,000.00, respetiely and her ar%ed
salary from 1= $eptember 1 to G0 2tober 1 of "G,#=0.00 pl%s
legal interest at 1G from date of >%diial demand on G0 eember 1
%ntil finality hereof;
" to pay omplainant moral damages of !00,000.00,
e?emplary damages of "!0,000.00 and 10 of the total of the ad>%dged
monetary a*ards as attorneys fees.
2ther monetary laims of omplainant are dismissed for la+ of merit.
$2 2B3B3.:0A;
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 20/26
fter its motion for reonsideration *as denied, C eleated the ase to
the Co%rt of ppeals in a petition for ertiorari %nder B%le =!. 7he petition *as
first dismissed for fail%re to attah parti%lar do%ments, :00; b%t *as reinstated on
gro%nds of the higher interest of >%stie.:04;
7hereafter, the appellate o%rt r%led that the 'BC ommitted grae ab%se
of disretion, and reersed the deision of the 'BC.:0<; 7he appellate o%rt
reasoned that petitioner sho%ld not be allo*ed to renege from the stip%lations she
had ol%ntarily and +no*ingly e?e%ted by ino+ing the se%rity of ten%re %nder
the 'abor Code. ording to the appellate o%rt, petitioner *as a fi?ed-term
employee and not a reg%lar employee *ithin the ambit of rtile G80 :02; of the
'abor Code bea%se her >ob, as antiipated and agreed %pon, *as only for a
speified time.:03;
ggrieed, petitioner no* omes to this Co%rt on a petition for reie*,
raising iss%es as follo*s:6.
76$ 22B'3 C2EB7 C B363) 73 F66<$ 2F
73 22B'3 C2EB7 2F 3'$, 73 3C6$62 2F
)6C 6$ 27 6 CC2B )67 ') 2B )67 73
'6C'3 3C6$62$ 2F 73 $EB3M3 C2EB7;D
66.
73 B2-F2BM 7'37 C27BC7$, $ C2BB3C7'4
F2E 4 73 'BC F6B$7 66$62, B3 ANTI-
REGULARIZATION DEI!E" )6C ME$7 3 $7BECK 2)
F2B B3$2$ 2F E'6C 2'6C4;D
666.
4 B3$2 2F 73 C276E2E$ $ECC3$$63
B33)'$ 2F 73 7B33-M27 7'37 C27BC7$, 3M'243B-3M'2433 B3'762$6 )$ CB373 $
B263 F2B E3B B76C'3 G80 2F 73 '2B C23;D
6.
4 73 C2$7BEC763 6$M6$$' 2F 3B36 3767623B,
$ B3<E'B 3M'2433, 73B3 )$ 36' 2F
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 21/26
3767623B$ B6<7 72 E3 B2C3$$ 7E$ 3767'6< 3B
72 73 M234 C'6M$ $ $773 6 73 C2M'67.D:01;
7he iss%es for o%r disposition are: 91 *hether or not this Co%rt an reie*
the findings of the Co%rt of ppeals; and 9G *hether or not %nder B%le /! of the
B%les of Co%rt the Co%rt of ppeals ommitted a reersible error in its eision.
2n the first iss%e, priate respondents ontend that the iss%es raised in the
instant petition are mainly fat%al and that there is no sho*ing that the said iss%es
hae been resoled arbitrarily and *itho%t basis. 7hey add that the findings of the
Co%rt of ppeals are s%pported by oer*helming *ealth of eidene on reord as
*ell as preailing >%rispr%dene on the matter.:0=;
etitioner ho*eer ontends that this Co%rt an reie* the findings of the
Co%rt of ppeals, sine the appellate o%rt erred in deiding a @%estion of
s%bstane in a *ay *hih is not in aord *ith la* or *ith appliable deisions of
this Co%rt.:0>;
)e agree *ith petitioner. eisions, final orders or resol%tions of the Co%rt
of ppeals in any ase regardless of the nat%re of the ation or proeeding inoled
may be appealed to this Co%rt thro%gh a petition for reie*. 7his remedy is a
ontin%ation of the appellate proess oer the original ase,
:0?;
and onsideringthere is no ongr%ene in the findings of the 'BC and the Co%rt of ppeals
regarding the stat%s of employment of petitioner, an e?eption to the general r%le
that this Co%rt is bo%nd by the findings of fats of the appellate o%rt, :4A; *e an
reie* s%h findings.
2n the seond iss%e, priate respondents ontend that the Co%rt of ppeals
did not err *hen it %pheld the alidity of the talent ontrats ol%ntarily entered
into by petitioner. 6t f%rther stated that preailing >%rispr%dene has reogni(ed and
s%stained the absene of employer-employee relationship bet*een a talent and themedia entity *hih engaged the talents series on a per talent ontrat basis,
iting the ase of "on#a v. AB"-!BN Broa$%a&ting !or'oration.:40;
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 22/26
etitioner aers ho*eer that an employer-employee relationship *as
reated *hen the priate respondents started to merely rene* the ontrats
repeatedly fifteen times or for fo%r onse%tie years.:44;
gain, *e agree *ith petitioner. 7he Co%rt of ppeals ommitted reersibleerror *hen it held that petitioner *as a fi?ed-term employee. etitioner *as a
reg%lar employee %nder ontemplation of la*. 7he pratie of haing fi?ed-term
ontrats in the ind%stry does not a%tomatially ma+e all talent ontrats alid and
ompliant *ith labor la*. 7he assertion that a talent ontrat e?ists does not
neessarily preent a reg%lar employment stat%s.:4<;
F%rther, the "on#a ase is not appliable. 6n "on#a, the teleision station did
not instr%t $on(a ho* to perform his >ob. o* $on(a deliered his lines, appeared
on teleision, and so%nded on radio *ere o%tside the teleision stations ontrol.
$on(a had a free hand on *hat to say or dis%ss in his sho*s proided he did not
atta+ the teleision station or its interests. Clearly, the teleision station did not
e?erise ontrol oer the means and methods of the performane of $on(as *or+.:42; 6n the ase at bar, C had ontrol oer the performane of petitioners *or+.
ote*orthy too, is the omparatiely lo* G8,000 monthly pay of
petitioner :43; vi& the "00,000 a month salary of $on(a, :41;that all the more bolsters
the onl%sion that petitioner *as not in the same sit%ation as $on(a.
7he ontrat of employment of petitioner *ith C had the follo*ing
stip%lations:
? ? ? ?
1. $C23 2F $3B6C3$ 7'37 agrees to deote hisAher talent,
time, attention and best efforts in the performane of hisAher d%ties and
responsibilities as nhorArogram ostAe*saster of the rogram, in
aordane *ith the diretion of C andAor its a%thori(ed
representaties.
1.1. E763$ B3$2$66'6763$ 7'37 shall:
a. Bender hisAher series as a ne*saster on the rogram;
b. e inoled in ne*s-gathering operations by ond%ting
interie*s on- and off-the-air;
. artiipate in lie remote oerages *hen alled %pon;
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 23/26
d. e aailable for any other ne*s assignment, s%h as *riting,
researh or amera *or+;
e. ttend prod%tion meetings;
f. 2n assigned days, be at the st%dios at least one 91 ho%r before
the lie teleasts;
g. e present promptly at the st%dios andAor other plae of assignment at the time designated by C;
h. Keep abreast of the ne*s;
i. <ie hisAher f%ll ooperation to C and its d%ly a%thori(ed
representaties in the prod%tion and promotion of the
rogram; and
>. erform s%h other f%ntions as may be assigned to himAher
from time to time.
? ? ? ?
1." C2M'6C3 )67 $7B$, 6$7BEC762$
273B BE'3$ B3<E'762$ 7'37 agrees
that heAshe *ill promptly and faithf%lly omply *ith the re@%ests
and instr%tions, as *ell as the program standards, poliies, r%les
and reg%lations of C, the K and the goernment or any of its
agenies and instr%mentalities.:4=;
? ? ? ?
6n (anila )ater !o*'an+, In%. v. ena,:4>; *e said that the elements to determine the
e?istene of an employment relationship are: 9a the seletion and engagement of the
employee, 9b the payment of *ages, 9 the po*er of dismissal, and 9d the
employers po*er to ontrol. 7he most important element is the employers ontrol of
the employees ond%t, not only as to the res%lt of the *or+ to be done, b%t also as to
the means and methods to aomplish it.:4?;
7he d%ties of petitioner as en%merated in her employment ontrat indiate
that C had ontrol oer the *or+ of petitioner. side from ontrol, C also
ditated the *or+ assignments and payment of petitioners *ages. C also had po*er to dismiss her. ll these being present, learly, there e?isted an employment
relationship bet*een petitioner and C.
Conerning reg%lar employment, the la* proides for t*o +inds of
employees, namely: 91 those *ho are engaged to perform atiities *hih are
%s%ally neessary or desirable in the %s%al b%siness or trade of the employer; and
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 24/26
9G those *ho hae rendered at least one year of serie, *hether ontin%o%s or
bro+en, *ith respet to the atiity in *hih they are employed.:<A; 6n other *ords,
reg%lar stat%s arises from either the nat%re of *or+ of the employee or the d%ration
of his employment.:<0; 6n Benare& v. an%ho,:<4; *e ery s%intly said:
7Dhe primary standard for determining reg%lar employment is the
reasonable onnetion bet*een the parti%lar atiity performed by the
employee vi&--vi& the %s%al trade or b%siness of the employer. 7his
onnetion an be determined by onsidering the nat%re of the *or+
performed and its relation to the sheme of the parti%lar b%siness or
trade in its entirety. 6f the employee has been performing the >ob for at
least a year, een if the performane is not ontin%o%s and merely
intermittent, the la* deems repeated and ontin%ing need for its
performane as s%ffiient eidene of the neessity if not
indispensability of that atiity to the b%siness. ene, the employment
is onsidered reg%lar, b%t only *ith respet to s%h atiity and *hile
s%h atiity e?ists.:<<;
6n o%r ie*, the re@%isites for reg%larity of employment hae been met in the
instant ase. <leaned from the desription of the sope of series aforementioned,
petitioners *or+ *as neessary or desirable in the %s%al b%siness or trade of the
employer *hih inl%des, as a pre-ondition for its enfranhisement, its
partiipation in the goernments ne*s and p%bli information dissemination. 6n
addition, her *or+ *as ontin%o%s for a period of fo%r years. 7his repeatedengagement %nder ontrat of hire is indiatie of the neessity and desirability of
the petitioners *or+ in priate respondent Cs b%siness.:<2;
7he ontention of the appellate o%rt that the ontrat *as harateri(ed by a
alid fi?ed-period employment is %ntenable. For s%h ontrat to be alid, it sho%ld be
sho*n that the fi?ed period *as +no*ingly and ol%ntarily agreed %pon by the
parties. 7here sho%ld hae been no fore, d%ress or improper press%re bro%ght to bear
%pon the employee; neither sho%ld there be any other ir%mstane that itiates the
employees onsent.:<3; 6t sho%ld satisfatorily appear that the employer and theemployee dealt *ith eah other on more or less e@%al terms *ith no moral dominane
being e?erised by the employer oer the employee.:<1; Moreoer, fi?ed-term
employment *ill not be onsidered alid *here, from the ir%mstanes, it is apparent
that periods hae been imposed to prel%de a@%isition of ten%rial se%rity by the
employee.:<=;
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 25/26
6n the ase at bar, it does not appear that the employer and employee dealt *ith
eah other on e@%al terms. Enderstandably, the petitioner o%ld not ob>et to the terms
of her employment ontrat bea%se she did not *ant to lose the >ob that she loed and
the *or+plae that she had gro*n a%stomed to,:<>; *hih is e?atly *hat happened
*hen she finally manifested her intention to negotiate. eing one of the n%mero%sne*sastersAbroadasters of C and desiring to +eep her >ob as a broadasting
pratitioner, petitioner *as left *ith no hoie b%t to affi? her signat%re of onformity
on eah rene*al of her ontrat as already prepared by priate respondents; other*ise,
priate respondents *o%ld hae simply ref%sed to rene* her ontrat. atently, the
petitioner o%pied a position of *ea+ness vi&--vi& the employer. Moreoer, priate
respondents pratie of repeatedly e?tending petitioners "-month ontrat for fo%r years
is a ir%mention of the a@%isition of reg%lar stat%s. ene, there *as no alid fi?ed-
term employment bet*een petitioner and priate respondents.
)hile this Co%rt has reogni(ed the alidity of fi?ed-term employment
ontrats in a n%mber of ases, it has onsistently emphasi(ed that *hen the
ir%mstanes of a ase sho* that the periods *ere imposed to blo+ the
a@%isition of se%rity of ten%re, they sho%ld be str%+ do*n for being ontrary to
la*, morals, good %stoms, p%bli order or p%bli poliy.:<?;
s a reg%lar employee, petitioner is entitled to se%rity of ten%re and an be
dismissed only for >%st a%se and after d%e ompliane *ith proed%ral d%e
proess. $ine priate respondents did not obsere d%e proess in onstr%tiely
dismissing the petitioner, *e hold that there *as an illegal dismissal.
W))!+), the hallenged eision dated Jan%ary "0, G00/ and
Besol%tion dated J%ne G", G00/ of the Co%rt of ppeals in C-<.B. $ o. ="1G!,
*hih held that the petitioner *as a fi?ed-term employee,
are )V)#)' and #)T $#%'). 7he 'BC deision is $!!%()'.
Costs against priate respondents.
#+ +'))'.
)+$'+ $. 9U%#U(5%/
ting Chief J%stie
7/25/2019 Sonza vs Abs-cbn and Dumpit-murillo vs. CA
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sonza-vs-abs-cbn-and-dumpit-murillo-vs-ca 26/26
)3 C2CEB:
$T+%+ T. *$&%+
ssoiate J%stie
*+*%T$ *$&%+ (+$)#
ssoiate J%stie
'$T) +. T%/$
ssoiate J%stie
&)#5%T)+ 7. V)$#*+, 7.
ssoiate J%stie
* ) T % ! % * $ T % +
%rs%ant to $etion 1", rtile 666 of the Constit%tion, 6 ertify that the
onl%sions in the aboe eision had been reahed in ons%ltation before the ase
*as assigned to the *riter of the opinion of the Co%rts iision.L
)+$'+ $. 9U%#U(5%/
ting Chief J%stie