**Facts:**
1. **Engagement and Initial Employment**:
– Roberto C. Servaña (respondent) served as a security guard for Television and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE) from March 1987 until March 3, 2000.
– Initially connected with Agro-Commercial Security Agency.
– Was later absorbed by TAPE as a regular company guard stationed at Broadway Centrum.
2. **Dismissal**:
– On March 2, 2000, respondent received a memorandum of impending dismissal due to TAPE’s decision to contract a professional security agency.
3. **Filing of Complaint**:
– Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits, claiming other monetary considerations withheld and nonpayment of separation pay.
4. **TAPE’s Counter**:
– In a motion to dismiss (treated as a position paper), TAPE argued lack of employer-employee relationship.
– TAPE contended respondent was a talent hired to provide security and crowd control for “Eat Bulaga!” and was free to seek other employment.
5. **Labor Arbiter Decision**:
– On June 29, 2001, Labor Arbiter Daisy G. Cauton-Barcelona ruled respondent as a regular employee and ordered the payment of P78,000.00 as separation pay.
6. **NLRC Decision**:
– NLRC, on April 22, 2002, reversed the decision, considering respondent a program employee, not a regular employee.
7. **Court of Appeals**:
– Respondent appealed via certiorari; Court of Appeals reinstated Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification, awarding P10,000.00 for non-compliance with statutory due process.
8. **Supreme Court Petition**:
– TAPE’s petition for review under Rule 45 primarily questioned the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
**Issues:**
1. **Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship**:
– Whether the respondent was a regular employee or an independent contractor/talent.
2. **Compliance with Statutory Due Process**:
– Whether TAPE complied with procedural due process requirements for authorized dismissal due to redundancy.
3. **Liability of TAPE’s President Antonio P. Tuviera**:
– Whether Tuviera could be held solidarily liable with TAPE for the respondent’s claims.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Employer-Employee Relationship**:
– Supreme Court upheld that Servaña was a regular employee of TAPE. Applying the “four-fold test” (selection/hiring, payment of wages, power of dismissal, control), the court emphasized:
– **Hiring**: TAPE absorbed respondent when the security agency’s contract expired in 1995.
– **Payment**: Respondent received a fixed amount monthly classified as wages under the Labor Code.
– **Dismissal**: Memorandum on discontinuance of service demonstrated TAPE’s power to dismiss.
– **Control**: Bundy cards evidenced control over respondent’s work hours.
2. **Statutory Due Process Compliance**:
– While the termination due to redundancy was valid, the failure to provide 30-day notice to the Department of Labor and Employment amounted to non-compliance with procedural due process.
3. **Liability of Antonio P. Tuviera**:
– Absent proof of malice or bad faith, Tuviera was absolved from solidary liability with TAPE. TAPE alone was held liable to pay the P10,000.00 nominal damages for due process violations.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Employer-Employee Relationship**:
– Determined by the “four-fold test” involving hiring, wages, power of dismissal, and control of work means and methods.
2. **Procedural Due Process for Redundancy**:
– Employers must provide 30-day notice to both the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment prior to termination for authorized causes (Art. 283, Labor Code). Non-compliance entitles the employee to nominal damages.
**Class Notes:**
– **Key Elements**:
– **Four-Fold Test**: (a) Selection/engagement, (b) Payment of wages, (c) Power of dismissal, and (d) Control of work means/methods.
– **Procedural Due Process in Redundancy**: 30-day notice to employee and labor department.
– **Legal Basis**: Article 280 and 283 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
– **Nominal Damages**: In cases of procedural due process violations.
**Historical Background:**
– Reflective of evolving employment norms and protection measures for workers, especially in industries involving “talents” and special arrangements.
– Demonstrates shifts from informal to professionalized occupational categories and growing emphasis on procedural rights adherence in termination.
Leave a Reply