Employer-Employee Relationship for Television anchorman for a news program

 There is no employer-employee relationship relationship for Television anchorman for a news

program.

Television anchors, often known as news analysts or news anchors, keep the audience informed
about local, national, and international news and events. They synchronize news broadcasts and use their
public speaking skills to communicate the news to people in a clear and succinct manner. In view of the
case Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (G.R. No. 138051), the issue therein is whether or not
there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

ABS-CBN and Mel and Jay Management Development Corporation (MJMDC) entered an
agreement in which the latter accorded petitioner Sonza's services exclusively to ABS-CBN as a radio and
television talent. Afterward, Sonza issued an irrevocable resignation letter to ABS-CBN President
Eugenio Lopez III in April 1996, citing recent occurrences impacting his program and career. The
station's actions are in violation of the Agreement, and this letter will serve as notice of contract
revocation. The letter also included a waiver and renunciation for the remaining sum due, but it held the
right to pursue the other benefits under the said Agreement.

Subsequently, Sonza filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
after receiving the aforesaid letter, stating that ABS-CBN failed to pay his salaries, separation pay,
service incentive pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance, and sums under the Employees
Stock Option Plan (ESOP). ABS-CBN further asserted that there is no employer-employee relationship
between the parties. On the other hand, ABS-CBN continued to pay Sonza's monthly talent fees while
opening a new account for the same purpose. The complaint was dismissed as the Labor Arbiter
determines that because of his particular skill and aptitude as a TV host and radio broadcaster, he is
therefore not an employee. Unlike a regular employee, he was free to perform his services in his own
style. The LA was upheld by the NLRC and Court of Appeals (CA). Such that, if there is a complaint
present, it stems from a breach of contract, not from an employer-employee relationship.

On that account, the ruling is that there is no existing employer-employee relationship between
Sonza and ABS-CBN. By using the control test, it is concluded that Sonza is an independent contractor
rather than an employee. Our courts use the control test to determine whether someone is an employee or
an independent contractor. This test is based on how much control the employer has over the employee.
The more the employer’s supervision and control, the more likely the worker are to be classified as an
employee. The opposite is also true, such that the less control the employer has, the more likely the
worker is classified as an independent contractor.

In any case, not all of the rules imposed on the hired party show that the latter is an employee of
the former. Sonza failed to demonstrate that these rules governed his performance in this case. These
broad criteria are only guidelines for achieving the mutually desired result of top-rated television and
radio programs that adhere to industry standards. Being an exclusive talent does not imply that Sonza is
an ABS-CBN employee. Even an independent contractor can legally give services to the hiring party
exclusively. In the broadcasting sector, exclusivity does not always imply control. Not every fee-for-
service performance results in an employer-employee relationship. Giving significance to the security of
tenure provision by holding that everyone who provides services for a charge is an employee will lead to
ludicrous conclusions.

Source:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jun2004/gr_138051_2004.html

Employer-Employee Relationship for Insurance salesman

 There is no employer-employee relationship relationship for an Insurance Salesman.

 Insurance sales agents help insurance companies generate new business by contacting potential
customers and selling one or more types of insurance. Following the case of Tongko v. Manulife (G.R.
No. 167622), the issue therein is whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between
Manulife and Tongko, and if there is, whether Manulife is guilty of illegal dismissal.

Respondent Manulife is a life insurance company. Petitioner Gregorio V. Tongko began his
professional relationship with Manulife on July 1, 1977. He was executed with Manlike because of a
Career Agents Agreement. The agreement's pertinent provisions state that:

It is understood and agreed that the Agent is an independent contractor, and nothing in this
agreement should be construed or interpreted as establishing an employer-employee relationship between
the Company and the Agent.

a) The Agent shall canvass for applications for Life Insurance, Annuities, Group Policies, and other
products offered by the Company, and collect money due or to become due to the Company in respect of
applications or policies obtained by or through the Agent or from policy holders allotted by the Company
to the Agent for servicing, subject to subsequent confirmation of payment by the Company as evidence by
an Official Receipt issued by the Company directly to the policyholder.

b) The Company may terminate this Agreement if the Agent breaches or violates any of its provisions by
providing written notice to the Agent within fifteen (15) days of the discovery of the breach. No waiver,
extinguishment, abandonment, withdrawal, or cancellation of the Company's right to terminate this
Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of any previous failure to exercise the Company's right under
any provision of this Agreement.

c) Either of the parties hereto may likewise terminate his Agreement at any time without cause, by giving
to the other party fifteen (15) days' notice in writing.

Sometime in 2001, De Dios wrote a letter to Tongko, then a Metro North Manager, regarding
meetings in which De Dios found Tongko's views and comments to be at odds with the company's
direction. De Dios was also concerned about Metro North Managers' interpretation of the company's
goals. He insists that Tongko's allegations are false. Some allegations claim that some Managers are
dissatisfied with their pay, that they are paid less than they deserve, and that this is why Tongko's division
is unable to meet agency development goals. However, no Manager has come forward to confirm these
allegations. Finally, De Dios expressed concern about Tongko's inability to drive company development
and growth.

In accordance with Tongko's Agents Contract, De Dios then sent Tongko a letter of termination.
Tongko filed a complaint with the NLRC against Manulife for illegal dismissal, claiming that he had an
employer-employee relationship with De Dios rather than a revocable agency because the latter exercised
control over him through directives on how to manage his area of responsibility and setting business
objectives for him. Tongko also claimed that his dismissal was without cause and that he was denied due
process.

The NLRC ruled in Tongko's favor, confirming the existence of an employer-employee

relationship. However, the Court of Appeals overturned the NLRC's decision. It used the four-fold test to
determine control and found the elements, in this case, lacking, basing its decision on the same facts as
the NLRC. It determined that Manulife lacked control over Tongko, that there was no employer-
employee relationship, and that the NLRC lacked jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court
overturned the Court of Appeals' decision and ruled in favor of Tongko. However, on June 29, 2010, the
Supreme Court issued another Resolution reversing its decision.

On that premise, the Supreme Court sees no reason to overturn the decision of June 29, 2010. The
primary factor in determining whether an employment relationship exists is control over the performance
of the task of one providing service, both in terms of means and manner, and the results of the service.
The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's motion because he failed to demonstrate that the control
Manulife exercised over him was the type of control required in an employer-employee relationship;
Manulife's control fell short of this standard and carried only the characteristics of a relationship between
an insurance company and its agents, as defined by the Insurance Code and the law of agency under the
Civil Code.

The Supreme Court noted in its June 29, 2010 Resolution that there are built-in elements of
control specific to an insurance agency that does not amount to the elements of control that characterize
an employment relationship governed by the Labor Code. The Insurance Code provides definite
parameters for how an agent negotiates for the sale of the company's insurance products, his collection
activities, and his delivery of the insurance contract or policy. They do not achieve the level of control
over the means and manner of carrying out an assigned task that invariably characterizes an employer-
employee relationship as defined by labor law.

To reaffirm, guidelines indicative of labor law "control" must have the nature of dictating the
means and methods to be used in achieving the mutually desired result intended by the contractual
relationship. Manulife's instructions regarding the objectives and sales targets, in connection with the
training and engagement of other agents, are among the directives that the principal may impose on the
agent to achieve the assigned tasks, as tested by this norm. They have targeted results that Manulife
wishes to achieve through its agents. Manulife's codes of conduct, similarly, do not necessarily intrude
into the means and manner in which insurance agents conduct their sales. Codes of conduct are norms or
standards of behavior rather than employer directives on how certain tasks are to be done.

Source:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_167622_2010.html