The Special Eighteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu City denied a petition for certiorari filed by former talents of GMA Network’s Cebu originating station.
Petitioners Nathaniel Nuevas, Carlo Flores and Jerry Saquilabon, who were talent hosts and artists contracted for the then weekly show, Singgit Cebu, previously filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and non-payment of labor benefits against the Network.
In its April 24, 2014 decision written by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, the CA upheld the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter that there exists no employer-employee relationship between GMA and the petitioners.
The CA adhered to the four-fold test applied by the Supreme Court in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship: selection and engagement of employee; payment of wages; power of dismissal; and the power of control employee’s conduct, the last one considered as the most important element. The CA said that “it is in agreement with the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in saying that respondents have no control over the means and methods by which the petitioners accomplished their work.”
As program hosts, the CA said that the complainants “knew the parameters of their performances but as to how they perform is dependent on their talents and abilities.” Moreover, as a broadcasting company, GMA’s shows can be watched indiscriminately by all kinds of people. For this reason, “GMA is constrained by mandate of law to exercise some form of limited supervision over petitioners in order to ensure that this aspect of responsible broadcasting is not breached,” the CA added.
The CA further noted that “petitioners’ services are not exclusive for the respondents, as they were not restricted from working for any business entity. Their services were only needed by respondent network every Sunday for the Singgit Cebu Show and no other.”
“In sum, we cannot find fault in respondent network when it terminated the talent contracts of petitioners there being no employer-employee relationship,” concluded the CA.
