DUMPIT MURILLO VS.
CA AND ABC all talent contracts valid and compliant
FACTS:
Thelma Dumpit Murillo was
employed as a newscaster and a co-
anchor for Balitan-balita by the
Associated Broadcasting Company on
October 2, 1995. The contract was for
a period of three months. On
September 30, 1999, after four years
of repeated renewals, Petitioners
talent contract expired. No contract
was again enteredinto by the parties
to the previous contract. The
petitioners then wrote a letter
demanding her reinstatement to her
former position, payment of
backwages and services. On
December 30, 1999, petitioner filed a
case against ABC for illegal
constructive dismissal. The labor
arbiter ruled in favor of ABC. The NLRC
however reversed the decision and
ruled that an employer-employee
relationship existed between
petitioner and respondent and that the
petitioner was a regular employee
illegally dismissed. When the case
reached the Court of Appeals, the
latter decided that Petitioner should
not be allowed to renege from the
stipulations she had voluntarily and
knowingly executed by invoking the
security of tenure of the Labor Code,
hence this appeal.
ISSUE: WON an employee-employer
relationship existed between ABC and
Petitioner and was she illegally
dismissed.
HELD:
The CA committed reversible
error when it held that petitioner was
a fixed term employee. Petitioner was
a regular employee under
contemplation of law. The practice of
having fixed term contracts in the
industry does not automatically make
with labor law.
In Manila Water Company vs.
Pena, the elements to determine the
existence of an employer employee
relationship are: (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee (b) the
payment of wages, (c) the power of
dismissal, (d) the employers power to
control. The duties of the Petitioner as
enumerated in her employment
contract indicate that ABC had control
over the work of the Petitioner. Aside
from control, ABC also dictated the
work assignments and payment of
Petitioners wages. ABC also had the
power to dismiss her. All these being
present, clearly there existed an
employer-employee relationship
between Petitioner and ABC.
Concerning regular employment,
the Law provides for two kinds of
employees. (1) those engaged to
perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable to the usual
business or trade of the employer, (2)
those who have rendered at least one
year of service, whether continuous
broken.
The Petitioners work was
necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer
which includes its participation in the
Governments news and public
information dissemination. In addition,
her work was continuous for four
years. Her contract was renewed for
over 15 times. This repetitive renewal
was indicative of Petitioners works
desirability and necessity. Hence it is
concluded that she is a regular
employee.

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS
BENAMIRA
FACTS:
The individual respondents are
licenced security guards formerly
employed by Peoples Security
Incorporated and deployed in the
premises of MERALCO. On November
30,1990, the security service
agreement between PSI and MERALCO
was terminated. Immediately
thereafter the fifty six security guards
filed a complaint for monetary
benefits. On December 1,1990,
MERALCO and Armed Security and
Detective Agencys contract took
effect and the respondents were
absorbed. Again on July 25, 1992, a
new contract was entered into by
Meralco with Advance Forces Security
and Investigation Services.
In their complaint, the individual
respondents alleged that: MERALCO
and ASDAI never paid their overtime
pay, service incentive leave pay,
premium pay for Sundays and
Holidays, P50.00 monthly uniform
allowance and underpaid their 13th
month pay; on July 24, 1992, when the
security service agreement of ASDAI
was terminated and AFSISI took over
the security functions of the former on
July 25, 1992, respondent security
guard Benamira was no longer given
any work assignment when AFSISI
learned that the former has a pending
case against PSI, in effect, dismissing
him from the service without just
cause; and, the rest of the individual
respondents were absorbed by AFSISI
but were not given any assignments,
thereby dismissing them from the
service without just cause.
ASDAI denied the allegations in
general terms while MERALCO denied
any liability claiming that there was no
employee-employer relationship
between the respondents and
MERALCO as the former are
employees of the security agencies.
ISSUE: WON respondents are
employees of MERALCO who are
illegally dismissed.
HELD:
Applying the four-fold test, the
respondents cannot pass as regular
employees of MERALCO. First, it is the
security agency which selects its
security guards or employs the
respondents, next, it is the agency
which pays their wages and not the
establishment which they are
assigned. It is also the agency which
furnishes the guards with training,
arms and ammunitions and other
equipment. In other words, it is the
security agency which controls the
respondents actions. The
establishment to where the guards are
also assigned do not have the power
to dismiss them. Given the foregoing,
it is concluded that MERALCO is not
the employer of the respondents.
However, regarding the civil
liability to be paid to the Respondents,
MERALCO is considered an principal
employer of the respondents. When
ASDAI as contractor failed to pay the
individual respondents, MERALCO as
principal becomes jointly and severally
liable for the individual respondents
wages, under Articles 106 and 109 of
the Labor Code, which provide:
ART. 106. Contractor or
subcontractor. - Whenever an
employer enters into a contract with
another person for the performance of
the former[s] work, the employees of
the contractor and of the latter[s]
subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in
accordance with the provisions of this
Code.
 In the event that the contractor or
subcontractor fails to pay the wages of
his employees in accordance with this
Code, the employer shall be jointly
and severally liable with his contractor
or subcontractor to such employees to
the extent of the work performed
under the contract, in the same
manner and extent that he is liable to
employees directly employed by him.
xxx

ART. 109. Solidary liability - The

provisions of existing laws to the
contrary notwithstanding, every
employer or indirect employer shall be
held responsible with his contractor or
subcontractor for any violation of any
provision of this Code. For purpose of
determining the extent of their civil
liability under this Chapter, they shall
be considered as direct employers.

ASDAI is held liable by virtue of its

status as direct employer, while
MERALCO is deemed the indirect
employer of the individual
respondents for the purpose of paying
their wages in the event of failure of
ASDAI to pay them. This statutory
scheme gives the workers the
ample protection.