Paragele, Et Al. v. GMA

HENRY T. PARAGELE, et al. vs. GMA NETWORK, INC.
G.R. No. 235315

July 13, 2020
Facts:
The present petition arose from a consolidated complaint for regularization, which was
subsequently converted into one for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary/wages, and
regularization filed by petitioners and other co-complainants against respondent GMA Network,
Inc. Respondent GMA hired the 30 petitioners as camera operators. Petitioners claim that they
are regular employees of respondent GMA. Countering petitioners, GMA denied the existence of
an employer-employee relationship. It insisted that petitioners were engaged as mere pinch-
hitters or relievers whose services were engaged only when there was a need for substitute or
additional workforce.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the consolidated complaint due to petitioners’ failure to
prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. On appeal, the NLRC modified the
Labor Arbiter’s Decision. The NLRC recognized petitioners as employees of GMA, but held that
only one of their co-complainants, Roxin Lazaro, was a regular employee. However, the NLRC
added that the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and GMA
does not automatically mean that petitioners were regular employees of GMA. It reasoned that,
pursuant to Article 295 of the Labor Code, petitioners should have first rendered at least one year
of service, whether such service is continuous or broken before they can be considered regular
employees of GMA. Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed
their petition for lack of merit and sustained the decision and resolution of the NLRC. Hence, the
present petition.
Petitioners maintain that they are employees of GMA having satisfied the four-fold test
of employer-employee relationship in this manner: (1) GMA hired them as camera operators; (2)
GMA compensated them for their service; (3) GMA exercised its power of dismissal, albeit
unjustly, over them; and (4) GMA had control over the means and methods of their work.
Petitioners assert that as camera operators assigned to several television programs of GMA, they
performed functions that were necessary and desirable to GMA’s business as both a television
and broadcasting company. They further contend that their repeated and continuous employment
with GMA after each television program they covered shows the necessity and desirability of
their functions. Hence, they have already attained the status of regular employees.
In its comment, GMA refutes the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Further, GMA asserts that the service fees given to the workers were not compensation paid to
an employee, but rather remuneration for the services rendered as pinch-hitters/freelancers.
GMA adds that, even assuming that an employer-employee relationship did exist between them,
petitioners could not have attained regular status considering their failure to render at least one
year of service as required by law. Specifically, with respect to petitioner Adonis Ventura, GMA
added that he was engaged as a fixed-term employee under a valid Talent Agreement.
Accordingly, Ventura’s employment was automatically terminated upon the happening of the
day certain stipulated in the contract.
Issues:
1. Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and
GMA.
2. Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees of GMA.
3. Whether or not petitioner Ventura is a fixed-term employee.
Ruling:
1. The Court ruled that petitioners were able to prove that there is an employer-
employee relationship pursuant to the four-fold test. On the power of hiring, there is
no question that petitioners were engaged by and rendered services directly to GMA. On
the payment of wages, that petitioners were paid so-called service fees and not wages is
merely a matter of nomenclature. It is settled that the mode of computing compensation is
not the decisive factor in ascertaining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. What matters is that the employee received compensation from the employer
for the services that he or she rendered. Here, there is no question that GMA directly
compensated petitioners for their services. On the power to dismiss, the Court of Appeals
correctly sustained the National Labor Relations Commission in noting that the power of
dismissal is implied and is concomitant with the power to select and engage; in other
words, it is also the power to disengage. More importantly, petitioners were subject to
GMA’s control and supervision. Among others, their recordings and shoots were never
left to their own discretion and craft; they were required to follow the work schedules
which GMA provided to them; they were not allowed to leave the work site during
tapings, which often lasted for days; and they were also required to follow company rules
like any other employee.
2. Petitioners are regular employees of GMA. Here, GMA argues that petitioners should
have rendered at least one (1) year of service before they are deemed to have attained
regular status. Quite notably, GMA does not refute the finding that petitioners performed
functions necessary and desirable to its usual business, it merely insists on a supposedly
requisite duration. From the plain language of the second paragraph of Article 295 of the
Labor Code, it is clear that the requirement of rendering at least one (1) year of service
before an employee is deemed to have attained regular status, only applies to casual
employees. An employee is regarded a casual employee if he or she was engaged to
perform functions which are not necessary and desirable to the usual business and trade
of the employer. Thus, when one is engaged to perform functions which are necessary
and desirable to the usual business and trade of the employer, engagement for a year-long
duration is not a controlling consideration. GMA's claim that petitioners were required to
render at least one (1) year of service before they may be considered regular employees
finds no basis in law. Petitioners were never casual employees precisely because they
performed functions that were necessary and desirable to the usual business of GMA.
They did not need to render a year's worth of service to be considered regular employees.
3. Ventura is not a fixed-term employee. The Court emphasized in the case of Brent School,
Inc. v. Zamora that where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have
been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be
struck down as contrary to public policy or morals. Thus, for a fixed-term employment
contract to be valid, it must conform to the following: (1) the fixed period of
employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any
force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent
any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or (2) it satisfactorily appears that the
employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no
moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter. It would be improper to classify
Ventura as a fixed-term employee considering that GMA did not even allege the
manner as to how the terms of the contract with him were agreed upon. It is the
employer which must satisfactorily show that it was not in a dominant position of
advantage in dealing with its prospective employee. Thus, the burden is upon GMA as
the employer to prove that it dealt with Ventura in more or less equal terms in the
execution of the talent agreements with him. That Ventura never contested the execution
of his talent agreements cannot in any way operate to preclude him from attaining regular
employment status.

Paragele, Et Al. v. GMA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paragele, Et Al. v. GMA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paragele, Et Al. v. GMA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HENRY T. PARAGELE, et al. vs. GMA NETWORK, INC.

G.R. No. 235315

In its comment, GMA refutes the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

You might also like