Orozco vs. Fifth Division of the Court of Appeal GR NO.

155207, AUGUST 13, 2008

Facts:PDI engaged the services of Orozco to write a weeklycolumn for its Lifestyle section. She
religiously submitted her articles except for a 6-month stint when she went to NY
City.Nevertheless, she continued to send her articles through mail.

S h e a l s o r e c e i v e d c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r e v e r y c o l u m n t h a t w a s published.When Orozco’s
column appeared in the newspaper for the last time, her editor, Logarta, told her that the PDI’s editor-in-
chief, Magsanoc, wanted to stop publishing her columns for noreason at all and advised her to talk
to the editor-in-chief.

WhenOrozco talked to Magsanoc, the latter told her that it was the PDIchairperson who wanted to stop
the publication of her column.However, when Orozco talked to Apostol, the latter told her that
Magsanoc informed her that the Lifestyle section had alreadymany columnists.P D I c l a i m s t h a t
M a g s a n o c m e t w i t h t h e e d i t o r o f t h e Lifestyle section to discuss how to improve said
section. They agreed to cut down the number of columnists by keeping onlythose whose
columns were well-written, with regular feedbackand following. In their judgment,
petitioner’s column failed toimprove, continued to be superficially and poorly written,
andfailed to meet the high standards of the newspaper.

Hence, theydecided to terminate petitioner’s column. Orozco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The LAdecided in favor of petitioner.

On appeal, the NLRC dismissedthe appeal and affirmed the LA’s decision. The CA on the other hand,
set aside the NLRC’s decision and dismissed Orozco’scomplaint

Issue: Whether petitioner is an employee of PDI. \Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed

Decision: Petition dismissed. Judgment and Resolution affirmed.

A p p l y i n g t h e f o u r - f o l d t e s t , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t P D I lacked control over the petitioner.

Though PDI issued guidelines for the petitioner to follow in the course of writing her columns,
careful examination reveals that the factors enumerated by the petitioner are inherent
conditions in running a newspaper.Ino t h e r w o r d s , t h e s o -
c a l l e d c o n t r o l a s t o t i m e , s p a c e , a n d discipline aredictated by the very nature
o f t h e n e w s p a p e r b u s i n e s s i t s e l f . A s i d e f r o m t h e c o n s t r a i n t s p r e s e n t e d b y t h e spac
e allocation of her column, there were no restraints on her creativity; petitioner was free to
write her column in the manner and style she was accustomed to and to use whatever research
m e t h o d s h e d e e m e d s u i t a b l e f o r h e r p u r p o s e . T h e a p p a r e n t limitation that she had to
write only on subjects that befitted the Lifestyle section did not translate to control, but was
simply a logical consequence of the fact that her column appeared in that s e c t i o n a n d
t h e r e f o r e h a d t o c a t e r t o t h e p r e f e r e n c e o f t h e readers of that section. Orozco in this case
is considered as an
independentc o n t r a c t o r . A s s t a t e d i n t h e c a s e o f S o n z a v s . A B S -
C B N , independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or
talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. Like the petitioner in the cited case, Petitioner
was engaged as a columnist for her talent, skill, experience, and her unique viewpoint as a feminist
advocate. How she utilized allt h e s e i n w r i t i n g h e r c o l u m n w a s
n o t s u b j e c t t o d i c t a t i o n b y respondent. As in Sonza, respondent PDI was not involved in
the actual performance that produced the finished product. It only reserved the right to
shorten petitioner’s articles based on the newspaper’s capacity to accommodate the same.
This fact w a s n o t u n i q u e t o p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c o l u m n . I t i s a r e a l i t y i n
t h e n e w s p a p e r b u s i n e s s t h a t s p a c e c o n s t r a i n t s o f t e n d i c t a t e t h e length of articles and
columns, even those that regularly appear therein. Furthermore, respondent PDI did not supply petitioner
with the tools and instrumentalities she needed to perform her work. P e t i t i o n e r o n l y
n e e d e d h e r t a l e n t a n d s k i l l t o c o m e u p w i t h a column every week. As such, she had all the
tools she needed to perform her work. Hence, since Orozco is not an employee of PDI, the latter
cannot be held guilty of illegally dismissing the petitioner