View full case

WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA

FACTS:

Wilhelmina S. Orozco, a newspaper columnist, filed a complaint against the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. PDI engaged Orozco to write a weekly column for its Lifestyle section, with compensation for every published article. Orozco's column was stopped without any reason and she was advised to talk to the PDI Editor in Chief, who informed her that the decision was made by the PDI Chairperson. PDI claimed that the termination was due to Orozco's failure to improve her poorly written columns. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Orozco, ordering her reinstatement and payment of back wages. PDI appealed, but the NLRC dismissed the appeal. PDI then filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

Orozco claimed to be an employee of PDI and filed a complaint with the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in her favor, but the Court of Appeals set aside the decision, stating that Orozco was not an employee based on certain facts. Orozco filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. She then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Court ordered the Labor Arbiter to clarify the amount of the award and required PDI to post a bond. The bond requirement was settled in a previous resolution. PDI complied with the bond requirement, but the Supreme Court stated that it would not proceed until the bond requirement was duly complied with.

The main issue in this case is whether Orozco is an employee of PDI and whether her dismissal was legal. The Court noted that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. The findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC conflicted with the Court of Appeals, so the Supreme Court conducted its own examination of the facts. Orozco admitted that she was not considered an employee by PDI, but the Court emphasized that employment status is determined by law. The Court applied the "four-fold test" to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, with the power of control being the most crucial factor. Orozco argued that the respondents exercised control over her work, but the Court did not provide further details on this argument.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and respondent PDI.

  2. Whether the control exercised by respondent PDI over the petitioner's work establishes an employer-employee relationship.

  3. Whether the control exercised by the respondent newspaper over the petitioner's work constitutes an employer-employee relationship.

  4. Whether the economic reality test should be applied in determining the nature of the relationship between the parties.

  5. Whether the petitioner is an employee or an independent contractor of respondent PDI.

  6. Whether the power of control is the dominant factor in determining the employment relationship.

  7. Whether or not the respondent PDI was the employer of the petitioner, thereby making the termination of her column tantamount to illegal dismissal.

RULING:

  1. No, an employer-employee relationship does not exist between the petitioner and respondent PDI. The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law, and not by the arbitrary terms decided upon by the parties. The "four-fold test" is used to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, which includes the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and employer's power to control the employee's conduct. Among these elements, the power of control is the most crucial and determinative factor. In this case, petitioner argued that respondents exercised control over her work, such as the contents of her column, time control, control of space, and discipline. However, these factors do not establish an employer-employee relationship as the control exercised by the hiring party should not dictate the means or methods to be employed in attaining the desired result.

  2. The Supreme Court held that the control exercised by the respondent newspaper over the petitioner's work does not establish an employer-employee relationship. The factors enumerated by the petitioner are inherent conditions in running a newspaper and do not amount to control over how the work itself is done. The newspaper only exercises control over the end result of the work, i.e., the submitted articles. Hence, the control test is not met.

  3. The Supreme Court also applied the economic reality test in determining the nature of the relationship between the parties. Considering that there is no written agreement or contract, the Court examined the economic realities prevailing within the activity and between the parties. The petitioner's main occupation is not as a columnist for the respondent newspaper but as a women's rights advocate working in various organizations. This suggests that the petitioner is not economically dependent on the respondent. Therefore, the economic reality test supports the finding that there is no employer-employee relationship.

  4. The petitioner is an independent contractor and not an employee of respondent PDI.

  5. The power of control is the dominant factor in determining the employment relationship.

  6. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the respondent PDI was not the employer of the petitioner. Thus, the termination of her column cannot be considered as illegal dismissal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The employment status of a person is determined by law and not by what the parties say it should be.

  • The "four-fold test" is used to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, with the power of control being the most crucial factor.

  • Rules imposed by the hiring party that serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result do not indicate an employer-employee relationship if they do not dictate the means or methods to be employed in attaining it.

  • The main determinant of an employer-employee relationship is whether the rules set by the employer control not just the results of the work, but also the means and method to be used by the hired party in achieving such results.

  • The control test in determining an employer-employee relationship focuses on the element of control over how the work itself is done, rather than just the end result.

  • In the newspaper business, control over time, space, and discipline is inherent due to the nature of the industry.

  • The power of a newspaper to approve or reject a specific article does not constitute control under the control test.

  • The economic reality test is applied in the absence of a written agreement or contract, taking into consideration the economic dependence of the worker on the employer.

  • There is no inflexible rule to determine if a person is an employee or an independent contractor. The characterization of the relationship must be made based on the particular circumstances of each case.

  • The right to control is the dominant factor in determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor.

  • An independent contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on one's own account and under one's own responsibility according to one's own manner and method, free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof.

  • The power of control over the means and methods of performance of the work is the most important factor in determining the employment relationship.

  • The fact that an independent contractor possesses unique skills, expertise, or talent can be indicative, though not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship.

  • The power of control is limited to the result of the work and does not include control over the means and methods of performance.

  • Providing equipment, crew, and airtime does not automatically establish an employer-employee relationship if the principal does not exercise control over the work itself.

  • Special skills and talent, minimal supervision, and the absence of control over how the contractor utilizes his or her skills and talent are factors indicative of an independent contractor status.

  • The relationship between an editor and a newspaper columnist is not akin to that of an employer and employee.

  • The actual performance and manner of writing the column is not subject to dictation by the newspaper.

  • Space constraints in the newspaper often dictate the length of articles and columns.

  • The employer-employee relationship requires the possession of tools and instrumentalities by the alleged employer for the performance of work.