Begino et al., vs ABS_CBN Corp.
o Their functions are necessary and desirable in
GR NO. 199166 | April 20, 2015
Perez
Padpad | 10
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: Nelson Begino, Gener Del Vlle,
Monina Avila-Llorin and Ma. Christina Sumayao
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ABS-CBN and Amalia Villafuerte
TOPIC:
Factors / Tests / Four Fold Test
CASE SUMMARY:
Petitioners were hired as cameramen and editors for the daily news
program, TV Patrol Bicol, under talent contracts. Petitioners filed a
complaint against the respondent with the NLRC praying for their
regularization, among others. The respondent denies having an
employer-employee relationship with the petitioners pursuant to the
talent contract. However, the court ruled that the petitioners were
regular employees because the performances of their functions are
reasonably connected with the business of the respondent.
TERMS:
Four Fold Test:
o (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee;
o (b) the payment of wages;
o (c) the power of dismissal; and
o (d) the employers power to control the employee
on the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished
PRECEDENTS:
NA
FACTS:
Amalia Villafuerte is a Manager at ABS-CBN in Naga City.
The company engaged the services of the petitioners as
cameramen and editors through her, for the daily news
program, TV Patrol Bicol.
The petitioners were under Talent Contracts, which were
regularly renewed. This contract specifically states that
nothing in the terms should be construed to establish an
employer-employee relationship. Some of the terms were:
o 3 months to 1 year duration of such contract.
o Subjected to ABS-CBNs professional standards
o Talents should not engage in similar work for
direct or indirect competitors of the corp.
o The work is output based which does not require
normal hours of work.
o Subject to contractors tax.
Project Assignment forms that detailed among others the
duration of the project as well as the budget and daily
technical requirements in their capacities as cameramen
and editors were also issued.
The petitioners claimed that they were regular employees
and filed a complaint in the NLRC for their claims for
regularization, underpayment of overtime pay, holiday pay,
13th month pay, damages, and attorneys fees. (First
complaint)
According to the petitioners, they are regular employees
because:
ABS-CBNs business;
o Mandated to wear company ID;
o They were briefed on what news items to cover
the following day;
o Bound by company policy on attendance and
punctuality among others;
o They subjected to annual competency
assessment;
o For emergency situations, they can be called at
any time of the day;
o They should inform management if they would
not be able to follow the schedule;
o They were hired based on the skills, knowledge,
and expertise they already possessed.
ABS-CBN is in the position that no such relationship exists
because:
o Company cannot afford regular talents;
o Hired based on the projects budget;
o There is some degree of control BUT only to
uphold the standards of the company;
o The petitioners can use the means and methods
they see fit in the performance of their tasks;
During the pendency of the first complaint, the petitioners
were terminated, hence they filed a second complaint
against ABS-CBN for illegal dismissal.
LA Quiones ruled in favor of the petitioners in the first
complaint mainly because of the exclusivity clause and the
Project Assignment forms, but dismissed the illegal
dismissal complaint for it violated the rule on non-forum
shopping and that the resolution of the second complaint is
hinged on the resolution of the first complaint.
The petitioners filed an appeal with the NLRC but failed to
certify the notice of appeal, but the NLRC upheld the LAs
decision. The CA however reversed the LAs decision on
the first complaint because there was no finding of
employer-employee relationship.
ISSUES:
WON the notice of appeal filed by the petitioners at the
NLRC level is valid
WON there exists an employer-employee relationship
between the petitioners and ABS-CBN
RULING:
1st issue: Yes
o Procedural requirements can be relaxed in the
interest of substantial justice.
2nd issue: Yes.
o The existence of employer-employee relationship
is a question of fact, however since the CA and
NLRC decision are not the same, the SC will still
determine if such relationship exists.
o Regardless of what is stated in the contract, the
petitioners are regular employees of the corp.
The test to determine whether an employee is
regular or not is the reasonable connection
between the activity performed by the
employee in relation to the business or trade
of the employer.
o From their initial agreement, the respondent has
continuously rehired the petitioners.
 o If the employee is performing the job for at
least one year, even if the performance is not
continuous, the law deems the repeated
performance as sufficient evidence of the
necessity of that activity in the business.
o Petitioners were subject to the control and
supervision of the respondents, which in the first
place provided them with their equipment.
o The SC did not decide on the second complaint
as it was still pending in the NLRC.

DISPOSITIVE: the CA decision is reversed and set aside

PROVISIONS:
ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular
where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project
or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined
at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service
to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration
of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at
least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall
be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists.