JOSE MEL BERNARTE VS.

PH BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
CARPIO; J
FACTS ISSUE RULING

Jose Mel Bernarte and On the other hand, Respondents 1. Whether petitioner Labor NLRC Court of Appeals, SC:
Renato Guevarra aver Guevarra alleges aver that is an employee of Arbiter: affirmed which overturned the To determine the
that they were invited to that he was invited complainants respondents, the Labor decisions of the existence of an employer-
join the PBA as to join the PBA pool entered into two which in turn Declared Arbiter’s NLRC and Labor employee relationship,
referees. of referees in contracts of determines petitioner an judgment. Arbiter. case law has consistently
February 2001. retainer with the whether petitioner employee applied the four-fold test,
During the leadership of PBA in the year was illegally whose Found petitioner an to wit: (a) the selection
Commissioner Emilio On March 1, 2001, 2003. dismissed. dismissal by independent and engagement of the
Bernardino, they were he signed a contract respondents contractor since employee; (b) the
made to sign contracts as trainee. The first 2. Whether the Labor was illegal. respondents did not payment of wages;
on a year-to-year basis. Beginning 2002, he contract was for Arbiter’s decision exercise any form of (c) the power of dismissal;
signed a yearly the period has become final Accordingly, control over the and (d) the employer’s
During the term of contract as Regular January 1, 2003 and executory for the Labor means and methods power to control the
Commissioner Eala, Class C referee. to July 15, failure of Arbiter by which petitioner employee on the means
however, changes were 2003; and the respondents to ordered the performed his work and methods by which the
made on the terms of On May 6, 2003, second was for appeal with the reinstatement as a basketball work is accomplished.
their employment. respondent September 1 to NLRC within the of petitioner referee.
Martinez issued a December reglementary and the The so-called “control
Bernarte, for instance, memorandum to 2003. period. payment of test” is the most important
was not made to sign a Guevarra backwages, “While the NLRC indicator of the presence
contract during the first expressing After the lapse RULING FOR NO. 2: moral and agreed that the PBA or absence of an
conference of the All- dissatisfaction over of the latter The best evidence to exemplary has no control over employer-employee
Filipino Cup. his questioning on period, PBA prove that notice was damages and the referees’ acts of relationship.
the assignment of decided not to sent would be a attorney’s blowing the whistle
It was only during the referees officiating renew their certification from the fees. and making calls With respondents that
second conference out-of-town games. contracts. postmaster, who during basketball once in the playing court,
when he was made to should certify not only games, it, the referees exercise their
sign a one and a half Beginning February Complainants that the notice was nevertheless, own independent
month contract. 2004, he was no were not issued or sent but also theorized that the judgment, based on the
longer made to sign illegally as to how, when and to said acts refer to the rules of the game, as to
Bernarte received a a contract. dismissed whom the delivery and means and methods when and how a call or
letter from the Office of because they receipt was made. The employed by the decision is to be made.
the Commissioner were not mailman may also referees in officiating The referees decide
advising him that his employees of testify that the notice basketball games for whether an infraction was
contract would not be the PBA. Their was actually the illogical reason committed, and the PBA
renewed citing his respective delivered.17 that said acts refer cannot overrule them
unsatisfactory contracts of only to the referees’ once the decision is made
performance on and off retainer were In this case, petitioner skills. How could a on the playing court. The
the court. simply not failed to present any skilled referee referees are the only,
renewed. PBA concrete proof as to perform his job absolute, and final
It was a total shock for had the how, when and to without blowing a authority on the playing
Bernarte who was prerogative of whom the delivery and whistle and making court. Respondents or any
awarded Referee of the whether or not receipt of the three calls? Worse, how of the PBA officers cannot
year in 2003. He felt to renew their notices issued by the can the PBA control and do not determine
that the dismissal was contracts, which post office was made. the performance of which calls to make or not
caused by his refusal to they knew were work of a referee to make and cannot
fixed. without controlling his control the referee when
fix a game upon order The NLRC declared acts of blowing the he blows the whistle
of Ernie De Leon. the issue on the finality whistle and making because such authority
of the Labor Arbiter’s calls? exclusively belongs to the
decision moot as referees. The very nature
respondents’ appeal Moreover, this Court of petitioner’s job of
was considered in the disagrees with the officiating a professional
interest of substantial Labor Arbiter’s finding basketball game
justice. We agree with (as affirmed by the undoubtedly calls for
the NLRC. The ends of NLRC) that the freedom of control by
justice will be better Contracts of Retainer respondents.
served if we resolve show that petitioners
the instant case on the have control over The applicable foreign
merits rather than private respondents. case law declares that a
allowing the referee is an independent
substantial issue of Neither do We agree contractor, whose special
whether petitioner is with the NLRC’s skills and independent
an independent affirmance of the judgment are required
contractor or an Labor Arbiter’s specifically for such
employee linger and conclusion that position and cannot
remain unsettled due private respondents’ possibly be controlled by
to procedural repeated hiring made the hiring party.
technicalities. them regular
employees by
operation of law.