G.R. No.

167638 June 22, 2005

ABS-CBN vs. MARQUEZ
Facts:
Petitioner hired the services of respondents on various dates starting December, 1994 to
undertake the production in the Cebuano dialect of television serial programs for petitioner's
week-day afternoon time slots in Cebu.
On June 15, 1999, respondents addressed a letter to petitioner asking for a 25% increase in their
weekly budget, but the same was denied by petitioner's AVP for the Visayas Cluster, Ma. Luisa L.
Ascalon. Instead, respondents were informed of the termination of their services effective August
13, 1999.
On August 27, 1999, respondents filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) at Region VII of
the Department of Labor and Employment their consolidated complaint for illegal dismissal;
illegal deduction; non-payment of overtime and holiday pay; premium pay for holiday, rest day
and night shift differential; non-payment of 13th month pay, service incentive leave, separation
pay, backwages; and attorney's fees.
On June 15, 2000, the Executive Labor Arbiter of RAB VII rendered a decision[4]cralaw in favor of
respondents and ordered petitioner to pay to them their money claims.
However, on petitioner's appeal, the NLRC'S 4th Division at Cebu City reversed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter.
Respondents moved for a reconsideration but their motion was denied by the NLRC's 4th Division
in its resolution of July 30, 2003.
From there, respondents went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, thereat
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 81750, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC's
4th Division in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's findings and in ruling that they were hired as
contractual or project employees, i.e. as "talents" engaged for specific projects, under the special
work arrangements with the petitioner, and in upholding the legality of their dismissal.
Respondents asserted that they are petitioner's regular employees and emphasized the fact of
their continuous work after each tele-series program and the very nature of their work, which is
"necessary and desirable" to the business or trade of their employer[5]cralaw. They also
asseverated that the application of the "four-fold test" in labor laws clearly shows the existence
of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
For its part, petitioner insisted that respondents were hired as program employees in the nature
of contractual or project employment; that respondents were mere "talents", i.e. they were
contracted because of their expertise or talents as program employees; and that respondents
were, in effect, mere program employees under Policy Instruction No. 40, series of 1979 whom
petitioner contracted due to their expertise for particular projects, in this case the production of
the Visayan tele-series programs.
In the herein assailed decision[6]cralaw dated December 20, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed
that of the NLRC and reinstated the earlier decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the respondents are employees of the petitioner.
Held:

Yes.
It may be so that respondents were assigned to a particular tele-series. However, petitioner can
and did immediately reassign them to a new production upon completion of a previous one.
Hence, they were continuously employed, the tele-series being a regular feature in petitioner's
network programs. Petitioner's continuous engagement of respondents from one production after
another, for more than five years, made the latter part of petitioner's workpool who cannot be
separated from the service without cause as they are considered regular. A project employee or a
member of a workpool may acquire the status of a regular employee when the following concur:
there is continuous rehiring of project employees even after the cessation of the project;
[8]cralaw and the tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital, necessary, and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of his employer.[9]cralaw It cannot be denied that
the services of respondents as members of a crew in the production of a tele-series are
undoubtedly connected with the business of the petitioner. This Court has held that the primary
standard in determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of his
employer.[10]cralaw Here, the activity performed by respondents is, without doubt, vital to
petitioner's trade or business.
We agree with the Court of Appeals when it upheld the conclusion of the Labor Arbiter that
petitioner broadcasts and produces its own television series and other programs, whether in
Cebu or in Manila; and that there is no distinction between its Cebu station and the mother
station because they are one and the same, more so due to lack of showing by the petitioner
that its Cebu station is independent from its mother station. It cannot thus be said that petitioner
is primarily just involved in mere broadcasting from satellite feeds or other sources. That the
production of the television series is vital, necessary and desirable to petitioner's usual business
is beyond question.

G.R. No. 168424

June 8, 2007

CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. vs Oberio

Facts:
Respondents alleged that they were employed as drama talents by DYWB-Bombo Radyo, a radio
station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. They reported
for work daily for six days in a week and were required to record their drama production in
advance. Some of them were employed by petitioner since 1974, while the latest one was hired
in 1997.
Sometime in August 1998, petitioner reduced the number of its drama productions from 14 to
11, but was opposed by respondents. After the negotiations failed, the latter sought the
intervention of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), which on November 12, 1998,
conducted through its Regional Office, an inspection of DWYB station. The results thereof
revealed that petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws, such as underpayment of
wages, 13th month pay, non-payment of service incentive leave pay, and non-coverage of
respondents under the Social Security System.
Vexed by the respondents complaint, petitioner allegedly pressured and intimidated respondents.
Respondents Oberio and Delta were suspended for minor lapses and the payment of their
salaries were purportedly delayed. Eventually, on February 3, 1999, pending the outcome of the
inspection case with the Regional Director, respondents were barred by petitioner from reporting
for work; thus, the former claimed constructive dismissal.
On October 12, 1999, respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment/non-payment
of wages and benefits plus damages against petitioner. On April 10, 2000, the Labor Arbiter
dismissed the case without prejudice while waiting for the decision of the Secretary of Labor on
the same issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondents.
On appeal to the NLRC, respondents raised the issue of employer-employee relationship and
submitted the following to prove the existence of such relationship.
On December 5, 2001, the NLRC rendered a decision holding that respondents were regular
employees of petitioner who were illegally dismissed by the latter.
Hence, petitioner filed the instant recourse.
Issue:
Whether respondents were employees of petitioner.
Held:
Yes.
The engagement of respondents for a period ranging from 2 to 25 years and the fact that their
drama programs were aired not only in Bacolod City but also in the sister stations of DYWB in the
Visayas and Mindanao areas, undoubtedly show that their work is necessary and indispensable to
the usual business or trade of petitioner. The test to determine whether employment is regular or
not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in

relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Also, if the employee has been
performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient
evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Thus, even
assuming that respondents were initially hired as project/contractual employees who were paid
per drama or per project/contract, the engagement of their services for 2 to 25 years justify their
classification as regular employees, their services being deemed indispensable to the business of
petitioner.