G.R. No. 235315 , July 13, 2020
Henry T. Paragele, et al., Petitioners, v. GMA Network, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, cameramen and assistant cameramen, filed a consolidated complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary/wages, and regularization against respondent GMA Network, Inc. They claimed to be regular employees, hired between 2000 and 2011 and dismissed in May 2013, performing work necessary and desirable to GMA’s broadcasting business. GMA denied an employer-employee relationship, insisting petitioners were “pinch-hitters or relievers” engaged only as substitute or additional workforce. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for failure to prove employer-employee relationship. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, finding an employer-employee relationship but held only one complainant (Roxin Lazaro) was a regular employee, as the others had not rendered at least one year of service as required under Article 295 (formerly 280) of the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals sustained the NLRC. Petitioners elevated the case via Rule 45, arguing they performed necessary and desirable functions and were under GMA’s control, thus were regular employees from engagement and were illegally dismissed.

ISSUE

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and GMA.
2. Assuming an employer-employee relationship existed, whether petitioners are regular employees of GMA.
3. Assuming regular employment status, whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING

1. Yes, an employer-employee relationship existed. The four-fold test was satisfied: (a) GMA hired petitioners as camera operators; (b) GMA compensated them per taping; (c) GMA exercised power of dismissal; and (d) GMA exercised control over the means and methods of their work, providing equipment, work schedules, supervisors, and requiring compliance with company standards. Their designation as “pinch-hitters or relievers” did not negate this relationship.
2. Yes, petitioners are regular employees. Petitioners performed functions (camera work) that are necessary and desirable to the usual business of GMA as a broadcasting company. Under Article 295 of the Labor Code, there are two types of regular employees: (1) those engaged in activities necessary or desirable to the usual business, who are considered regular from the day of their engagement; and (2) casual employees performing work neither necessary nor desirable to the usual business, who become regular only after rendering at least one year of service. Petitioners fall under the first category; the one-year service requirement does not apply to them. Their repeated and continuous engagement over several tapings and programs confirms the necessity and desirability of their work to GMA’s business.
3. Yes, petitioners were illegally dismissed. As regular employees, they enjoyed security of tenure. Their dismissal in May 2013 was without just or authorized cause and without due process. GMA failed to substantiate any lawful ground for termination. Consequently, petitioners are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time of dismissal until actual reinstatement.