You are on page 1of 3


CA AND ABC all talent contracts valid and compliant

with labor law.
FACTS: In Manila Water Company vs.
Thelma Dumpit Murillo was Pena, the elements to determine the
employed as a newscaster and a co- existence of an employer employee
anchor for Balitan-balita by the relationship are: (a) the selection and
Associated Broadcasting Company on engagement of the employee (b) the
October 2, 1995. The contract was for payment of wages, (c) the power of
a period of three months. On dismissal, (d) the employers power to
September 30, 1999, after four years control. The duties of the Petitioner as
of repeated renewals, Petitioners enumerated in her employment
talent contract expired. No contract contract indicate that ABC had control
was again enteredinto by the parties over the work of the Petitioner. Aside
to the previous contract. The from control, ABC also dictated the
petitioners then wrote a letter work assignments and payment of
demanding her reinstatement to her Petitioners wages. ABC also had the
former position, payment of power to dismiss her. All these being
backwages and services. On present, clearly there existed an
December 30, 1999, petitioner filed a employer-employee relationship
case against ABC for illegal between Petitioner and ABC.
constructive dismissal. The labor Concerning regular employment,
arbiter ruled in favor of ABC. The NLRC the Law provides for two kinds of
however reversed the decision and employees. (1) those engaged to
ruled that an employer-employee perform activities which are usually
relationship existed between necessary or desirable to the usual
petitioner and respondent and that the business or trade of the employer, (2)
petitioner was a regular employee those who have rendered at least one
illegally dismissed. When the case year of service, whether continuous
reached the Court of Appeals, the broken.
latter decided that Petitioner should The Petitioners work was
not be allowed to renege from the necessary or desirable in the usual
stipulations she had voluntarily and business or trade of the employer
knowingly executed by invoking the which includes its participation in the
security of tenure of the Labor Code, Governments news and public
hence this appeal. information dissemination. In addition,
her work was continuous for four
ISSUE: WON an employee-employer years. Her contract was renewed for
relationship existed between ABC and over 15 times. This repetitive renewal
Petitioner and was she illegally was indicative of Petitioners works
dismissed. desirability and necessity. Hence it is
concluded that she is a regular
HELD: employee.
The CA committed reversible
error when it held that petitioner was
a fixed term employee. Petitioner was
a regular employee under
contemplation of law. The practice of
having fixed term contracts in the
industry does not automatically make
between the respondents and
MERALCO as the former are
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS employees of the security agencies.
ISSUE: WON respondents are
FACTS: employees of MERALCO who are
The individual respondents are illegally dismissed.
licenced security guards formerly
employed by Peoples Security HELD:
Incorporated and deployed in the Applying the four-fold test, the
premises of MERALCO. On November respondents cannot pass as regular
30,1990, the security service employees of MERALCO. First, it is the
agreement between PSI and MERALCO security agency which selects its
was terminated. Immediately security guards or employs the
thereafter the fifty six security guards respondents, next, it is the agency
filed a complaint for monetary which pays their wages and not the
benefits. On December 1,1990, establishment which they are
MERALCO and Armed Security and assigned. It is also the agency which
Detective Agencys contract took furnishes the guards with training,
effect and the respondents were arms and ammunitions and other
absorbed. Again on July 25, 1992, a equipment. In other words, it is the
new contract was entered into by security agency which controls the
Meralco with Advance Forces Security respondents actions. The
and Investigation Services. establishment to where the guards are
In their complaint, the individual also assigned do not have the power
respondents alleged that: MERALCO to dismiss them. Given the foregoing,
and ASDAI never paid their overtime it is concluded that MERALCO is not
pay, service incentive leave pay, the employer of the respondents.
premium pay for Sundays and However, regarding the civil
Holidays, P50.00 monthly uniform liability to be paid to the Respondents,
allowance and underpaid their 13th MERALCO is considered an principal
month pay; on July 24, 1992, when the employer of the respondents. When
security service agreement of ASDAI ASDAI as contractor failed to pay the
was terminated and AFSISI took over individual respondents, MERALCO as
the security functions of the former on principal becomes jointly and severally
July 25, 1992, respondent security liable for the individual respondents
guard Benamira was no longer given wages, under Articles 106 and 109 of
any work assignment when AFSISI the Labor Code, which provide:
learned that the former has a pending
case against PSI, in effect, dismissing ART. 106. Contractor or
him from the service without just subcontractor. - Whenever an
cause; and, the rest of the individual employer enters into a contract with
respondents were absorbed by AFSISI another person for the performance of
but were not given any assignments, the former[s] work, the employees of
thereby dismissing them from the the contractor and of the latter[s]
service without just cause. subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in
ASDAI denied the allegations in accordance with the provisions of this
general terms while MERALCO denied Code.
any liability claiming that there was no
employee-employer relationship
In the event that the contractor or
subcontractor fails to pay the wages of
his employees in accordance with this
Code, the employer shall be jointly
and severally liable with his contractor
or subcontractor to such employees to
the extent of the work performed
under the contract, in the same
manner and extent that he is liable to
employees directly employed by him.

ART. 109. Solidary liability - The

provisions of existing laws to the
contrary notwithstanding, every
employer or indirect employer shall be
held responsible with his contractor or
subcontractor for any violation of any
provision of this Code. For purpose of
determining the extent of their civil
liability under this Chapter, they shall
be considered as direct employers.

ASDAI is held liable by virtue of its

status as direct employer, while
MERALCO is deemed the indirect
employer of the individual
respondents for the purpose of paying
their wages in the event of failure of
ASDAI to pay them. This statutory
scheme gives the workers the
ample protection.