Thelma Dumpit-Murillo vs Court of Appeals

524 SCRA 290 – Labor Law – Labor Standards – Fixed-Term Employee vs Regular
Employee

FACTS: Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was hired by ABC as a newscaster in 1995. Her

contract with the TV station was repeatedly renewed until 1999. She then wrote Jose
Javier (VP for News and Public Affairs of ABC) advising him of her intention to renew
the contract.

Javier did not respond.

Dumpit then demanded reinstatement as well as her backwages, service incentive leave
pays and other monetary benefits.

ABC said they could only pay her backwages but her other claims had no basis as she
was not entitled thereto because she is considered as a talent and not a regular employee.

Dumpit sued ABC. The Labor Arbiter ruled against Dumpit. The National Labor
Relations Commission reversed the LA. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and
ruled that as per the contract between ABC and Dumpit, Dumpit is a fixed term
employee.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dumpit is a regular employee.

HELD: Yes. Dumpit was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice
of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent
contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists
does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status.

The duties of Dumpit as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had
control over the work of Dumpit. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work
assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All
these being present, clearly, there existed an employment relationship between Dumpit
and ABC.

In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four years. This repeated
engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the
Dumpit’s work in ABC’s business.
 Television and Production Exponents, Inc. vs Roberto Servaña

542 SCRA 578 – Labor Law – Labor Standards – Regular Employee – Employer-
employee relationship – Four Fold Test

FACTS: Servaña started out as a security for the Agro-Commercial Security Agency
(ACSA) since 1987. The agency had a contract with TV network RPN 9.

On the other hand, Television and Production Exponents, Inc (TAPE). is a company in
charge of TV programming and was handling shows like Eat Bulaga! Eat Bulaga! was
then with RPN 9.

In 1995, RPN 9 severed its relations with ACSA. TAPE retained the services of Servaña
as a security guard and absorbed him.

In 2000, TAPE contracted the services of Sun Shield Security Agency. It then notified
Servaña that he is being terminated because he is now a redundant employee.

Servaña then filed a case for illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaña’s
dismissal is valid on the ground of redundancy but though he was not illegally dismissed
he is still entitled to be paid a separation pay which is amounting to one month pay for
every year of service which totals to P78,000.00.

TAPE appealed and argued that Servaña is not entitled to receive separation pay for he is
considered as a talent and not as a regular employee; that as such, there is no employee-
employer relationship between TAPE and Servaña. The National Labor Relations
Commission ruled in favor of TAPE. It ruled that Servaña is a program employee.
Servaña appealed before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and affirmed the LA. The CA further ruled that
TAPE and its president Tuviera should pay for nominal damages amounting to
P10,000.00.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employee-employer relationship existing between

TAPE and Servaña.

HELD: Yes. Servaña is a regular employee.

In determining Servaña’s nature of employment, the Supreme Court employed the Four
Fold Test:

1. Whether or not employer conducted the selection and engagement of the

employee.

Servaña was selected and engaged by TAPE when he was absorbed as a “talent” in 1995.
He is not really a talent, as termed by TAPE, because he performs an activity which is
necessary and desirable to TAPE’s business and that is being a security guard. Further,
the primary evidence of him being engaged as an employee is his employee identification
card. An identification card is usually provided not just as a security measure but to
mainly identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm who issues it.
2. Whether or not there is payment of wages to the employee by the employer.

Servaña is definitely receiving a fixed amount as monthly compensation. He’s receiving

P6,000.00 a month.

3. Whether or not employer has the power to dismiss employee.

The Memorandum of Discontinuance issued to Servaña to notify him that he is a

redundant employee evidenced TAPE’s power to dismiss Servaña.

4. Whether or not the employer has the power of control over the employee.

The bundy cards which showed that Servaña was required to report to work at fixed
hours of the day manifested the fact that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise,
Servaña could have reported at any time during the day as he may wish.

Therefore, Servaña is entitled to receive a separation pay.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that Tuviera, as president of TAPE, should
not be held liable for nominal damages as there was no showing he acted in bad faith in
terminating Servaña.

Regular Employee Defined:

One having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to a
company’s business.