TIANGCO v.

ABSCBN

FACTS:
– Petitioner Mel tiangco was engaged by ABSCBN as their newscaster (exclusive) 8000 pesos salary for 1 year beginning July 22 1986
– the contract expired on April 27 1991.
– ABS entered into an agreement with Mel and Jay dev’t corporation to provide Mel’s services as exclusive talent to radio and TV (TV patrol and Mel and Jay
radio prog, and co host of the mel and jay show, and exclusive director of lingkod bayan
– abs will provde benefits and if the agreement is cancelled without fault of the agent and Mel, ABS will pay the amoun specifiued in the agreement
– MEL allegedly violated the agreement when she appeared in a Tide commercial. She was suspended for 3 months without pay
– the parties failed to reach an amicable resolution despite correspondences although.
–

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
. Mel said that ABS verbally approved of her appearance in the commercial
. The three-month susspension without pay was harsh and unjust

ABS contentions:
. They did not give verbal approval to Mel
. the suspension was based on facts and circumstances

> Mel filed a complaint for backwages/illegal dismissal/suspension/other benefits ammounting to 150k
> her suspnesion and alleged constructive dismissal violated the agreement
2
1
>as such, Mel was rescinding the agreement
2
ABS: recision debuked — it had no basis since Mel is an independent contractor and her suspension was not tantamount to const. dsmissal
1
LABOR ARBITER RULING: ruled in favor of Mel
> ABS appealled before NLRC — lack of jurisdiction — no ee-er relationship between Mel and ABS
> Based on Jay Sonza case — Sonza is an IC and not an employee of ABS

NLRC
> REVERSED LABOR ARBITER DECISION — Mel and Jay are similarly situated; they are under the same agreement so the Sonza ruling applied to Mel

ISSUE:
W/N Mel Tiangco is an ABS employee or an independent contractor

RULING: MEL TIANGCO IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

> independent cotractor: carries a distinct and independent business
– performs the job on their own account under their own responsibillity, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN MANNER AND METHOD
– such performance is FERE FROM THE CONTROL AND DIRECTION OF THE PRINCIPAL IN ALL MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF
WORK, EXCEPT AS TO THE RESULTS THEREOF
– in contrast, an employee is subject to the employer’s power to control thje means and methods of performing work

elments of employer-employee relationship:

– in the sonza case- abs contended that it hired jay because of his skills, talent and celebrity is indivative of an independent contractual relationship. abs
would not have entered into such agreement if regular guy lang si Jay — THEMANNER OF SLECTING HIM DOES NOT DETERMINE HIS STATUS

payment of wages: whatever benefits paid to him arose from the contract and not because of ee-er relationship. his 300k monthly salary are so out of the
ordinary that it indicates independent contractual relationship — he was being paid for his skills — he could bargain such a huge amount — indicated contractual
relationship
> the direct payment to Jay sonza and not the management company is the agreed upon mode of payment

POWER OF DISMISSAL:
> under the agreement, the parties can terminate the relationship — jay failed to show that ABS could terminate him for reasons other than a breach of contract
(the agreement was Jay’s talent fees woould be paid as long as he faithfully complied with the conditions under the agreement)
> even when jay’s programs were no longer being aired, abs still paid his talent fees.

POWER OF CONTROL:
> RULING WAS BASED ON THE US CASE OF ALBERTY-VELEZ V. CORPORACION DE PUERTO RICO — the case ruled that a TV host is an independent contractor

HENCE, SONZA IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR — the control test is the most important test to determine whether one is an employee or IC
> more control — more likely that a person is an employee
> less control — more likely that a person is an IC

ABS was not involved in the actual performance to produce sonza’s work and did not instruct sonza how to do his job. abs only modified the program format and
airtime schedule. abs was only concerned about the show quality and ratings. ABS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL ON THE MEANS AND METHODS OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF SONZA’S WORK

JUST BECAUSE JAY IS AN EXCLUSIVE TALENT DOESNT MEAN THAT HE IS ANABS EMPLOYEE — even an IC can validy provide exclusive services to the hiring
party. EXCLUSIVITY NOT THE SAME AS CONTROL

IN THE CASE OF MEL TIANGCO - she contended that she was hired as an employee forthe same reasons that Jay was hired (skills, etc), she was onm the payroll
and received her salary every 10th and 25th of the month with tax withheld, abs controlled the means and methods of her work (she only read the news) and she
also had other rolls (director of lingkold bayan and TV patrol segment producer/reporter): HOWEVER —

. her skills, tgalent, exerpertise — this proved the presence of the elements of an independent contractor
. her payment via payroll with tax withheld — this was only for conveneice and does not indicate employment status. ang laki din ng sweldo nya — her talent
 .
fee was at 400k + 500k signing bonus worth of abs stocks.the high rate of compensastion allowed her to negotiate the terms of employment unlike
ordinary employees
. her suspnesion as indication that abs had power to discippline her - the suspension itself was improper. abs had no basis to suspend. there was nothing in
the agrement between mel and abs that allows the latter to suspend her for the violation
. her argument that abs controlled the manner she pefromed her job — there is nothing on record that said abs dictated how mel should read the news or
do other tasks. her voice, stature, aura etc form the unique qualities that impelled ABS to pic her for the job. her “reading the news” is not the same as an
average person reading the news
. as for the other postitions (lingkod bayan director etc) — ythere wwere no specifics in the job desc re: abs control in the performance of such job

petitioner failed to establish that ABS-CBN controlled the manner in which she performed her job as news anchor for TV Patrol. On the contrary, the Court finds
that petitioner performed the job according to her own manner and method, free from the network's control. Possession of unique skills, expertise, or talent is a
persuasive element of an independent contractor. It becomes conclusive if it is established that the worker performed the work according to their own manner
and method and free from the principal's control except to the result.