07 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Nazareno et al. 3.
They have the following tasks and duties:
G.R. No. 164156 | 26 Sept 2006 | Regular Employees | Gutierrez | Santos
PETITIONER: ABS-CBN Corporation
RESPONDENTS: Marlyn Nazero, Merlou Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine, Josephine
Lerasan
RECIT-READY: Petitioner hired respondents as production assistants. They
were assigned at the news and public affairs for various radio programs in its
Cebu station. For their work, they were paid 4K monthly for 5 years. Respondents
filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status. Petitioner
counter that they are not regular employees but merely program employees. As
program employees, a PA’s engagement is coterminous with the completion of
the program. The SC laid down the doctrine that when a person has rendered
at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the acitivity
performed, or where the work is continuous or intermittent, the employment
is considered regular as long as the acitivity exists, the reason being that a
customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally
declared as attaining regular status. In this case, respondents continuously
performed their tasks for 5 years. The need for their services is sufficient
evidence of the necessity and indispensability of such services to petitioner’s
business. In addition, the fact that respondents are titled program employees
does not affect their status as regular employees. Hence, what determines
whether an employment is regular or otherwise is not the will or word of the
employer but the character of the acitivies performed in relation to the
particular trade or business.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner is the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Coporation is engaged in the
broadcasting business, whose operations revolve around the broadcast,
transmission, and relay of telecommunication signals. Petitioner employed
respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as production
assistants (PAs).
2. Respondents were assigned at the news and public affairs for various radio
programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station, with a monthly compensation of
Php4,000 for 5 years continuously beginning from 1995 until 20 Nov 2002.
They were issued ABS-CBN employees’ identification cards and were
required to work for a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and
holidays.
 Prepare, arrange airing of commercial broadcasting;
 Coordinate, arrange personalities for air interviews;
 Coordinate, prepare schedule of reporters for scheduled news
reporting;
 Faciliate, prepare and arrange airtime schedule for public service
announcements;
 Assist, anchor program interview;
 Record, log, clerical reports.
4. Petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank and File Employees executed a
Collective Barganing Agreement. However, petitioner refused to recognize
PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the
CBA.
5. Respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment
Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, 13th
Month Pay against the petitioner before the NLRC. They assert that they
belonged to a “work pool” from which petitioner select persons to be given
specific assignments at its disrection, and were thus under the supervision
and control of petitioner regardless of nomenclature.
6. Petitioner corp counters that PAs are considered as “program employees”,
as distinguished with regular employees, they are enganged by the station
for a particular or specific program. As program employees, a PA’s
engagement is coterminous with the completion of the program. Their
compensation is computed on a program basis, a fixed amount irrespective
of the time consumed. Petitioner likewise presented their payroll, exhibiting
respondents were all paid salaries and benefits due them under the law.
7. LA ruled in favor respondents and declared them regular employees.
However, the LA did not award them monetary benefits as provided in the
CBA. The NLRC modified, ruling that respondents were entitled to the
benfits under the CBA because they were regular employees. It further held
that the award of benefits accorded to rank-and-file employees is a
necessary consequence of the NLRC ruling that respondents are regular
employees. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s on the award of benefits. It further
held that pespondents are not mere project employees but regular
employees who performed tasks necessary and desirable in the usual
business or trade of petitioner.
8. Petitioner rely on Sonza v. ABS-CBN. In that case, the Court found that
there was no existing employer-employee relationship. ABS-CBN agreed to
pay him 317K as his talent fee because of his unique skills, talent and status
not possessed by ordinary employees. The power to bargain talent fees way
above the ordinary scale is conclusive of an independent contractual
relationship.

ISSUE: W/N respondents are regular or project employees? – REGULAR
RULING:
1. Respondents are regular employees. When a person has rendered at least one
year of service, regardless of the nature of the acitivity performed, or where the work
is continuous or intermittent, the employment is considered regular as long as the
acitivity exists, the reason being that a customary appointment is not indispensable
before one may be formally declared as attaining regular status.
2. The primary standard to determine regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to
the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whethet the activity is usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The
connection can be determined by consideraing the nature of the work
performed and its relation to the particular business or trade in its entirety. In
addition, if the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if such
is not continuous and intermittent, the repeated and continuing need for its
performance is sufficient evidence of the indispensability of such activity to the
business.
3. The two kinds of regular employees under the Labor Code are: (1) Those engaged
to perform acitivies which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer; (2) Those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activities in which they are
performed. On the other hand, project employees are defined as not being regular
employees, their completion or termination of which is more or less determinable at
the time of employment.
4. Although labeled as “program employees” by their employer, it does not touch
upon their status as regular employees. What determines whether a certain
employment is regular or otherwise is not the will or word of the employer but the
character of the acitivities performed in relation to the particular trade or business
taking into account all the circumstances and in some cases, the length of time of its
performance and its continued existence. In this case, one year after petitioners
employed respondents, they became regular employees by operation of law.
5. The test to determine whether employees are project employees as
distinguished from regular employees is whether or not the employees were
assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope
of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that
project. Respondents cannot be considered as project or program employees
because no evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the
project were determined or specified at the time of their engangement.
6. The length of time rendered is a strong indicator to determine whether the
employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions
which are vital, necessary to the petitioner’s trade. It is undisputed respondents
continuously performed the same activities for 5 years. Their assigned tasks are
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner. The persisting
need for their services is sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of
such services to petitioner’s business.
7. The presumption is when the work done is an integral part of the regular business
of the employer and when the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an
independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of
such employee and not an independent contractor.
8. Reliance on Sonza v. ABS-CBN is misplaced. The difference is in this case, the
employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents has been
proven throught he following acts:
a) In the selection of respondents, no peculiar or unique sill, talent, or celebrity
status was required from them because they were hired through the
personnel department just like any ordinary employee;
b) Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent fees;
c) Petitioner could always discharge respondents should it find their work
unsatiscatory;
d) The degree of control and and supervision exercised by petitioner negates
that respondents are independent contractors.
9. Being declared as regular employees, it follows that respondents are entitled to the
benefits provided in the existing CBA between petitioner and its rank-and-file
employees.