7/29/2019 Television and Production Exponents, Inc. and/or Antonio P. Tuviera vs Roberto C. Servaa

1/2

Television and Production Exponents, Inc. and/or Antonio P. Tuviera vs Roberto C.Servaa

28 January 2008 l Labor Standards

Regular Employee Employer-employee relationship Four Fold Test

Servaa started out as a security for the Agro-Commercial Security Agency (ACSA) since1987. The agency had a contract with TV network RPN 9.

On the other hand, Television and Production Exponents, Inc (TAPE). is a company in chargeof TV programming and was handling shows like Eat Bulaga! Eat Bulaga! was then with RPN9.

In 1995, RPN 9 severed its relations with ACSA. TAPE retained the services of Servaa as asecurity guard and absorbed him.

In 2000, TAPE contracted the services of Sun Shield Security Agency. It then notifiedServaa that he is being terminated because he is now a redundant employee.

Servaa then filed a case for illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaasdismissal is valid on the ground of redundancy but though he was not illegally dismissed heis still entitled to be paid a separation pay which is amounting to one month pay for everyyear of service which totals to P78,000.00.

TAPE appealed and argued that Servaa is not entitled to receive separation pay for he isconsidered as a talent and not as a regular employee; that as such, there is no employee-employer relationship between TAPE and Servaa. The National Labor Relations Commissionruled in favor of TAPE. It ruled that Servaa is a program employee. Servaa appealedbefore the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and affirmed the LA. The CA further ruled that TAPEand its president Tuviera should pay for nominal damages amounting to P10,000.00.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employee-employer relationship existing between TAPEand Servaa.

HELD: Yes. Servaa is a regular employee.

In determining Servaas nature of employment, the Supreme Court employed the Four FoldTest:

1. Whether or not employer conducted the selection and engagement of the employee.

Servaa was selected and engaged by TAPE when he was absorbed as a talent in 1995.He is not really a talent, as termed by TAPE, because he performs an activity which isnecessary and desirable to TAPEs business and that is being a security guard. Further, theprimary evidence of him being engaged as an employee is his employee identification card.

An identification card is usually provided not just as a security measure but to mainlyidentify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm who issues it.

2. Whether or not there is payment of wages to the employee by the employer.

Servaa is definitely receiving a fixed amount as monthly compensation. Hes receivingP6,000.00 a month.

3. Whether or not employer has the power to dismiss employee.

7/29/2019 Television and Production Exponents, Inc. and/or Antonio P. Tuviera vs Roberto C. Servaa

2/2

The Memorandum of Discontinuance issued to Servaa to notify him that he is a redundantemployee evidenced TAPEs power to dismiss Servaa.

4. Whether or not the employer has the power of control over the employee.

The bundy cards which showed that Servaa was required to report to work at fixed hours ofthe day manifested the fact that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise, Servaa could

have reported at any time during the day as he may wish.

Therefore, Servaa is entitled to receive a separation pay.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that Tuviera, as president of TAPE, should notbe held liable for nominal damages as there was no showing he acted in bad faith interminating Servaa.

Regular Employee Defined:

One having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to acompanys business.