Televisions and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE, Inc.) vs.

Roberto Servaña
G.R. No. 167648 January 28, 2008

Doctrine: There is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the services are
performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the manner and means used to
achieve that end.

FACTS:

TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs while Antonio Tuviera
serves as its president. Roberto Servaña served as security guard for TAPE from 1987 until his services
were termitated on 3 March 2000. Servaña filed a complaint for illegal dismissal agianst TAPE.He alleged
that he was first connected with Agro-Commercial Security Agency but was later on absorbed by TAPE as
a regular company guard. His services were terminated on account of TAPE’s decision to contract the
services of a professional security agency. Tape, on the other hand, alleged that Servaña was an
independent contractor falling under the talent group category and was working under a special
arrangement. It alleged that it was agreed that Servaña would render his services unitil such time that the
company shall have engaged the services of a professional security agency.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is an Employer-Employee relationship between TAPE and Servaña?

LA RULING:

Yes. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaña was a regular employee of Tape on account of the nature of the
work of Servaña, which is securing and maintaining order in the studio, as necessary and desirable in the
usual business of TAPE. However, the Labor Aribter ruled the termination valid on the ground of
redundancy.
NLRC RULING: No. The NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter on the ground security services
may not be deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business of TAPE.
CA RULING: Yes. The CA ruled that that Servaña was a regular employee considering the nature and
length of his service.

SC RULING:

Yes.

Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors to be considered in determining the existence of
employer-employee relationship, namely: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the
payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with
respect to the means and method by which the work is to be accomplished.

Servaña was hired by TAPE when the latter absorbed him upon the expiration of his security agency
contract with RPN-9. The monthly salary received by Servaña is considered wages despite being
designated as talent fees by TAPE. The Memorandum informing Servaña of discontinuance of his services
also proves that TAPE had the power to dismiss him. Control is also manifested in the bundy cards
submitted by Servaña. He was required to report daily and observe definite work hours. He is also
considered a regular employee by reason of his 5 year continuous service regardless of whether or not
respondent had been performing work that is necessary or desirable to the usual business of TAPE. Thus
being a regular employee, his services may not be terminated except for a just or authorized cause. TAPE
is liable for illegal dismissal for it failure to comply the 1month requirement for termination of services as
required by law. However, with respect to the liability of petitioner Tuviera, president of TAPE, absent any
showing that he acted with malice or bad faith in terminating respondent, he cannot be held solidarily liable
with TAPE.