Paragele vs GMA Network [ G.R. No. 235315, July 13, 2020 ]

 Paragele vs GMA Network  [ G.R. No. 235315, July 13, 2020 ]

Facts: 

The thirty one petitioners in this case are cameramen and assistant cameramen of GMA network. This is a case of "illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary/wages, and regularization”. The petitioners claim that having passed the four fold test for an existence of an employer-employee relationship, they were regular employees of the respondent and have been dismissed illegally. They averred that (1) GMA hired them as camera operators; (2) GMA compensated them for their service; (3) GMA exercised its power of dismissal, albeit unjustly, over them; and (4) GMA had control over the means and methods of their work. 

They further explained that with respect to the element of control, their work schedules were provided by GMA, as well as the equipment they use and that GMA assigned supervisors to monitor their work and ensure their compliance with company standards.

Petitioners assert that as camera operators assigned to several television programs of GMA, they performed functions that were necessary and desirable to GMA's business as both a television and broadcasting company. They further contend that their repeated and continuous employment with GMA after each television program they covered shows the necessity and desirability of their functions. Hence, they have already attained the status of regular employees.

Respondent GMA Network on the other hand denies the existence of an employer-employee relationship as the petitioners were merely "pinch-hitters or relievers" only hired when there’s a need for additional workers. GMA also refuted that the petitioners were given compensation as an employee but rather, it was a renumeration for the services rendered. In addition, GMA claims that it only monitored the performance of their work to ensure that the "end result" is compliant with company standards. Further, GMA explained that petitioners could not have attained regular status as they have not rendered at least one year of service as required by law. 

Issue: 

1. Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship between the parties. 
2. Whether or not the petitioners were regular employees of the respondent. 

Ruling: 

1. Yes, there is an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and respondent. First, on the power of hiring, GMA concedes that it engaged the services of the petitioners. Second, on the payment of wages, it is not the nomenclature that determines the compensation received by an employee but the fact that GMA directly compensated the petitioners for their services. Third, on the power to dismiss, it is implied and is concomitant with the power to select and engage. Lastly, on the element of control, GMA exercised control over the means and methods of the petitioners’ work and not just the end result. They were subject to GMA’s control and supervision as their shoots and recordings were never left to their own discretion and craft. They were also required to follow the work schedule that GMA provides as well as the equipment they will use.

1. Yes, the petitioners were regular employees of GMA. There are 4 categories of employees,  namely: (1) regular; (2) project; (3) seasonal; and (4) casual employees. Article 295 of the Labor Code states that an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. However, this may also be the case for a project employee. The test for determining whether an employee is a regular employee or a project employee is to distinguish whether or not the "project employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. That such job is within the regular or usual business of the employer and not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings of GMA. The repeated engagement of petitioners over the years reinforces the indispensability of their services to GMA's business. The clear constant necessity for their services made the court certain that they were GMA’s regular employees.