GR 118892; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118892 March 11, 1998
FILIPINAS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SIMEON MAPA JR.
FACTS
Private respondent Simeon Mapa Jr. claimed he began working for petitioner DZRC Radio Station as a radio reporter on March 11, 1990. He alleged he took leaves of absence in May 1990 and September 1991 due to non-payment of salaries but was reinstated on January 16, 1992. He resigned on February 27, 1992 to run for public office. He filed a complaint for unpaid wages, 13th month pay, and other benefits for the period March 11, 1990 to January 16, 1992. Petitioner Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. (owner of DZRC) denied an employer-employee relationship existed during that period. It asserted Mapa was merely a “volunteer reporter” whose application for employment could not be processed due to his lack of a clearance from his previous employer. As a volunteer, he was not paid wages but was allowed to solicit sponsors for his broadcasts, from whom he directly received payments. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding no employer-employee relationship. The NLRC reversed this decision, declaring Mapa an employee entitled to his monetary claims.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. and private respondent Simeon Mapa Jr. for the period March 11, 1990 to January 16, 1992.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the NLRC Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the essential elements of an employer-employee relationship were absent. The “control test” was not satisfied, as petitioner did not control the means and methods by which Mapa performed his reporting work; he was not obliged to report at specific times or programs and his reports were not subject to editing. The absence of wages was critical; Mapa was not paid by the station but derived income from sponsors he personally solicited. His own sworn testimony in a prior case and his letter to management referred to his “volunteer status” and working “for free,” negating any expectation of salary. The Court found the NLRC’s conclusion of employment unsupported by evidence and contradicted by the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, which were more consistent with the records. Consequently, with no employer-employee relationship, the claim for employment benefits must fail.