Scribd
Upload
255 views2 pages

Television and Production Exponents v. Servaña

The document summarizes a labor case between Television and Production Exponents (TAPE) and Roberto Servaña. Servaña worked as a security guard for TAPE from 1987 to 2000 when he was terminated. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. TAPE argued he was an independent contractor. The Labor Arbiter ruled Servaña was a regular employee based on the nature of his work and TAPE's control over him. However, the NLRC reversed this, finding he was a program employee. The Court of Appeals then found he was a regular employee based on factors like his selection by TAPE, payment of wages, TAPE's power to dismiss him, and TAPE's control over his work.

Uploaded by

Bert Nazario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
255 views2 pages

Television and Production Exponents v. Servaña

The document summarizes a labor case between Television and Production Exponents (TAPE) and Roberto Servaña. Servaña worked as a security guard for TAPE from 1987 to 2000 when he was terminated. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. TAPE argued he was an independent contractor. The Labor Arbiter ruled Servaña was a regular employee based on the nature of his work and TAPE's control over him. However, the NLRC reversed this, finding he was a program employee. The Court of Appeals then found he was a regular employee based on factors like his selection by TAPE, payment of wages, TAPE's power to dismiss him, and TAPE's control over his work.

Uploaded by

Bert Nazario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. Television and Production Exponents v.

Servaña, January 28, 2008


Facts:
TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs, such as the long-running
variety program, "Eat Bulaga!". Respondent Roberto C. Servaña had served as a security guard for TAPE from
March 1987 until he was terminated on 3 March 2000.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits against TAPE. He alleged that he
was first connected with Agro-Commercial Security Agency but was later on absorbed by TAPE as a regular
company guard. He was detailed at Broadway Centrum in Quezon City where "Eat Bulaga!" regularly staged its
productions. Respondent received a memorandum informing him of his impending dismissal on account of
TAPE’s decision to contract the services of a professional security agency.
In a motion to dismiss which was treated as its position paper, TAPE countered that the labor arbiter had no
jurisdiction over the case in the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. TAPE
averred that respondent was an independent contractor falling under the talent group category and was
working under a special arrangement which is recognized in the industry that in 1995, when his contract with
RPN-9 expired, respondent was retained as a talent and a member of the support group, until such time that
TAPE shall have engaged the services of a professional security agency.
The Labor Arbiter declared respondent to be a regular employee of TAPE. The Labor Arbiter relied on the
nature of the work of respondent, which is securing and maintaining order in the studio, as necessary and
desirable in the usual business activity of TAPE. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that the termination was valid on
the ground of redundancy, and ordered the payment of respondent’s separation pay equivalent to one (1)-
month pay for every year of service. However on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a
Decision8 dated 22 April 2002 reversed the Labor Arbiter and considered respondent a mere program
employee. Unlike [a] regular employee, he did not observe working hours x x x. He worked for other
companies, such as M-Zet TV Production, Inc. at the same time that he was working for respondent company.
The foregoing indubitably shows that complainant-appellee was a program employee. Otherwise, he would
have two (2) employers at the same time.9 The Court of Appeals found respondent to be a regular employee.
Issue: WON there was an employer-employee relationship between TAPE and Sevana.
Ruling:
Yes. Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors to be considered in determining the existence
of employer-employee relationship, namely:

a. The selection and engagement of the employee

Respondent was first connected with Agro-Commercial Security Agency, which assigned him to assist TAPE in
its live productions. When the security agency’s contract with RPN-9 expired, respondent was absorbed by
TAPE, or in the latter’s language, “retained as talent”. Clearly, respondent was hired by TAPE. Respondent
presented his identification card. It has been in held that in business establishment, an identification card is
usually provided not just as a security measure but to mainly identify the holder thereof as a bona fide
employee of the firm who issues it.

b. The payment of wages


Respondent claims to have been receiving P5,444.44 as his monthly salary while TAPE prefers to designate
such amount as talent fees. Wages, as defined in the Labor Code, are remuneration or earnings, however
designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece
or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for service
rendered or to be rendered.

c. The power of dismissal

The Memorandum informing respondent of the discontinuance of his service proves that TAPE had the power
to dismiss respondent.

d. The employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and method by which the
work is to be accomplished.

Control is manifested in the bundy cards submitted by respondent in evidence. He was required to report daily
and observe definite work hours.

You might also like