BEGINO VS.

ABS-CBN CORPORATION
GR No. 199166 | April 20, 2015 | Perez, J.
Topic: Four-Fold Test

CASE SUMMARY:
Petitioners’ services were engaged by ABS through Talent Contracts which were renewed
regularly. The Talent Contract specifically provided that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to
establish an Employer-Employee Relationship. Petitioner’s renumerations were denominated as talent
fees. They filed claims for regularization before the NLRC. While the case was pending, petitioners were
terminated which prompted them to file a new case for regularization and illegal dismissal- this was later
dismissed for violation of the rule on non-forum shopping. SC ruled in favor of Petitioners and held that
notwithstanding the nomenclature of the Talent Contract, petitioners are regular employees of ABSCBN.

FACTS:
1) Respondent ABS-CBN Corporation, through its Manager Villafuerte, engaged the services of
petitioners for the TV Patrol Bicol Program in its Regional Network Group in Naga City.
 Begino (1996) and Del Valle (1996) as Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting, and
 Sumayao (1996) and Avila-Llorin (2002) as reporters
2) Their services were engaged by ABS-CBN through Talent Contracts which provided terms
ranging from 3 months to 1 year, although regularly renewed over the years. They were also
given Project Assignment Forms which detailed the duration of a particular project as well as the
budget and the daily technical requirements thereof.
 The Talent Contracts specifically provided that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to
establish an employer-employee relationship between the parties and included, among other
matters, provisions on
o Creation and performance of work
o Exclusivity
o Results-oriented nature of the talent’s work which did not require them to
observe normal or fixed working hours
 Petitioners’ remunerations were denominated as Talent Fees pegged per airing day.
3) Petitioners filed claims for regularization before the NLRC.
 They alleged that they performed functions necessary and desirable in ABS-CBN's
business.
 They were mandated to wear company IDs and provided all the equipment they needed,
hence, under the direct control and supervision of Villafuerte.
 They were bound by the company’s policy on attendance and punctuality.
 They were reportedly subjected to an annual competency assessment alongside other
ABS-CBN employees as condition for their continued employment.
 They merely earned P7,000.00 to P8,000.00 per month, or decidedly lower than the
P21,773.00 monthly salary of ABS-CBN regular rank-and-file employees.
 Considering their repeated re-hiring by respondents, this situation had gone on for years
since TV Patrol Bicol has continuously aired from 1996 onwards.
4) ABS-CBN argued that not having the full manpower complement to produce its own program,
the company had resorted to engaging independent contractors like actors, directors, artists,
 anchormen, reporters, scriptwriters and various production and technical staff, who offered their
services in relation to a particular program and were required to accomplish Talent Information
Forms.
 Respondents insisted that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment
Forms, petitioners were hired as talents and they are aware that they were not considered
or to consider themselves as employees of ABS-CBN.
 Petitioners were subjected to some degree of control only limited to the imposition of
general guidelines on conduct and performance for the purpose of upholding the
standards of the company and the strictures of the industry- NOT to exercise control or
restrictions over the means and methods by which they perform or discharge the services
they render.
5) Petitioners were terminated during the pendency of the 1st case, leading them to file another
complaint against respondents for regularization, payment of labor standard benefits, illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice.
 This was dismissed for violation against the rule on forum shopping.
6) Labor Arbiter Jesus Orlando Quiñones resolved the 1st case in favor of petitioners who were
determined to be regular employees.
 Based on the exclusivity clause and prohibitions under petitioners’ Talent Contracts
and/or Project Assignment Forms which evinced respondents’ control over them
7) The NLRC affirmed the LA’s ruling.
8) The CA reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, discounting the existence of an
employer- employee relation between the parties
 Petitioners were talents for periods, work and the program specified in the Talent
Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms
 Instead of fixed salaries, petitioners were paid talent fees depending on the budget
allocated for the program
 Respondents did not exercise control over the manner and method by which petitioner
accomplished their work and, at most, only ensured that they complied with the
standards of the company, the KBP and the industry
 Existence of an employer-employee relationship is not necessarily established by the
exclusivity clause and prohibitions which are but terms and conditions on which the
parties are allowed to freely stipulate.

ISSUES/HELD:
1. WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PARTIES?
 YES.
 SC: To determine the existence of employer-employee relation, case law has consistently applied
the four-fold test, to wit:
a. (a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
b. (b) the payment of wages;
c. (c) the power of dismissal; and
d. (d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which
the work is accomplished.
 Of these criteria, the so-called “control test” is generally regarded as the most crucial and
determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship.
 Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the person for whom
the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end result but also the
manner and means utilized to achieve the same.
 Article 280 of the Labor Code contemplates four kinds of employees, namely:
a. (a) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer;
b. (b) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of
the engagement of the employee;
c. (c) seasonal employees or those who work or perform services which are seasonal in
nature, and the employment is for the duration of the season; and
d. (d) casual employees or those who are not regular, project, or seasonal employees.
e. Jurisprudence has added that of (e) contractual or fixed term employee which, if not for
the fixed term, would fall under the category of regular employment in view of the
nature of the employee’s engagement, which is to perform activity usually necessary or
desirable in the employer’s business.
 Held: Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment
Forms and the terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-
CBN.
a. Time and again, it has been ruled that the test to determine whether employment is
regular or not is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the
employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer.
b. As cameramen/editors and reporters, petitioners were undoubtedly performing functions
necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business of broadcasting television and radio
content.
c. It matters little that petitioners’ services were engaged for specified periods for TV Patrol
Bicol and that they were paid according to the budget allocated therefor.
d. Respondents’ repeated hiring of petitioners for its long-running news program positively
indicates that the latter were ABS-CBN’s regular employees
 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 or continuing performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity in the business.
 Employment stops being co-terminous with specific projects where the employee is continuously
re-hired due to the demands of the employer’s business or when contractually stipulated periods
of employment have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee
 The nature of the employment depends on the nature of the activities to be performed by the
employee, considering the nature of the employer’s business, the duration and scope to be done,
and, in some cases, even the length of time of the performance and its continued existence.
 As cameramen/editors and reporters, it also appears that petitioners were subject to the control
and supervision of respondents which provided them with the equipment essential for the
discharge of their functions.
 a. The Talent Contracts tellingly provided that ABS-CBN retained “all creative,
administrative, financial and legal control” of the program to which they were assigne
and the right to require petitioners “to attend and participate in all promotional or
merchandising campaigns, activities or events for the Program. ”
b. ABS-CBN also required petitioners to perform their functions “at such locations and
Performance/Exhibition Schedules” it provided.

DISPOSITIVE:
Decision Reversed.