View full case

JOSE Y. SONZA v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

FACTS:

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into an Agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation, represented by Jose Y. Sonza and Carmela Tiangco. Sonza was hired as a talent for radio and television and co-hosted the Mel & Jay program. Sonza resigned from ABS-CBN and filed a complaint for non-payment of salaries and other benefits. ABS-CBN argued that no employer-employee relationship existed. The Labor Arbiter initially denied ABS-CBN's motion to dismiss but later dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Sonza appealed, claiming he was an employee entitled to benefits. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed based on the agency relationship between Sonza and MJMDC. Sonza appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the ruling and stressed the factual nature of determining an employer-employee relationship.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Sonza and ABS-CBN.

  2. Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case based on the alleged employer-employee relationship.

RULING:

  1. Employer-Employee Relationship: There was no employer-employee relationship between Sonza and ABS-CBN. Sonza was an independent contractor.

  2. Labor Arbiter's Jurisdiction: The Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case as the claims were based on civil law rather than labor law.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Elements of Employer-Employee Relationship

    • Selection and engagement of the employee

    • Payment of wages

    • Power of dismissal

    • Employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished (the "control test")

  2. Control Test: The most important test for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is the extent of control exercised by the hirer.

  3. Independent Contractor: An individual with special skills, expertise, or talent may be considered an independent contractor if they retain control over the means and methods of their work, despite the hirer's right to control the result.

  4. Substantial Evidence: Factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are given respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.

  5. Labor Code vs. Civil Law: Claims based on contractual agreements rather than labor code provisions fall under civil disputes and are within the jurisdiction of regular courts, not labor arbiters.

  6. Executive Issuance: Policy Instruction No. 40 does not have the force of law and cannot override established legal principles or create binding classifications not supported by law.

  7. Different Tax Treatment: Under the National Internal Revenue Code, talents and broadcasters treated as independent contractors are subject to VAT, unlike those in an employer-employee relationship who are exempt.