Republic of the Philippines at all and advised petitioner to talk to Magsanoc herself.

Petitioner
SUPREME COURT narrates that when she talked to Magsanoc, the latter informed her
Manila that it was PDI Chairperson Eugenia Apostol who had asked to stop
THIRD DIVISION publication of her column, but that in a telephone conversation with
G.R. No. 155207 August 13, 2008 Apostol, the latter said that Magsanoc informed her (Apostol) that the
WILHELMINA S. OROZCO, petitioner, Lifestyle section already had many columnists.7
vs. On the other hand, PDI claims that in June 1991, Magsanoc met with
THE FIFTH DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF the Lifestyle section editor to discuss how to improve said section.
APPEALS, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, and LETICIA JIMENEZ They agreed to cut down the number of columnists by keeping only
MAGSANOC, respondents. those whose columns were well-written, with regular feedback and
DECISION following. In their judgment, petitioner’s column failed to improve,
NACHURA, J.: continued to be superficially and poorly written, and failed to meet
The case before this Court raises a novel question never before the high standards of the newspaper. Hence, they decided to
decided in our jurisdiction – whether a newspaper columnist is an terminate petitioner’s column.8
employee of the newspaper which publishes the column. Aggrieved by the newspaper’s action, petitioner filed a complaint for
In this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on illegal dismissal, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and
Civil Procedure, petitioner Wilhelmina S. Orozco assails the other money claims before the NLRC.
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 50970 On October 29, 1993, Labor Arbiter Arthur Amansec rendered a
dated June 11, 2002 and its Resolution2 dated September 11, 2002 Decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
denying her Motion for Reconsideration. The CA reversed and set WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding complainant to
aside the Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission be an employee of respondent company; ordering respondent
(NLRC), which in turn had affirmed the Decision4 of the Labor Arbiter company to reinstate her to her former or equivalent position, with
finding that Orozco was an employee of private respondent backwages.
Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) and was illegally dismissed as Respondent company is also ordered to pay her 13th month pay and
columnist of said newspaper. service incentive leave pay.
In March 1990, PDI engaged the services of petitioner to write a Other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
weekly column for its Lifestyle section. She religiously submitted her SO ORDERED.9
articles every week, except for a six-month stint in New York City The Labor Arbiter found that:
when she, nonetheless, sent several articles through mail. She [R]espondent company exercised full and complete control over the
received compensation of P250.00 – later increased to P300.00 – for means and method by which complainant’s work – that of a regular
every column published.5 columnist – had to be accomplished. This control might not be found
On November 7, 1992, petitioner’s column appeared in the PDI for in an instruction, verbal or oral, given to complainant defining the
the last time. Petitioner claims that her then editor, Ms. Lita T. means and method she should write her column. Rather, this control
Logarta,6 told her that respondent Leticia Jimenez Magsanoc, PDI is manifested and certained (sic) in respondents’ admitted
Editor in Chief, wanted to stop publishing her column for no reason
prerogative to reject any article submitted by complainant for November 7, 1992 up to promulgation of the Labor Arbiter’s
publication. decision.11
By virtue of this power, complainant was helplessly constrained to The NLRC also resolved the appeal on its merits. It found no error in
adopt her subjects and style of writing to suit the editorial taste of her the Labor Arbiter’s findings of fact and law. It sustained the Labor
editor. Otherwise, off to the trash can went her articles. Arbiter’s reasoning that respondent PDI exercised control over
Moreover, this control is already manifested in column title, "Feminist petitioner’s work.
Reflection" allotted complainant. Under this title, complainant’s PDI then filed a Petition for Review12 before this Court seeking the
writing was controlled and limited to a woman’s perspective on reversal of the NLRC Decision. However, in a Resolution13 dated
matters of feminine interests. That respondent had no control over December 2, 1998, this Court referred the case to the Court of
the subject matter written by complainant is strongly belied by this Appeals, pursuant to our ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes v.
observation. Even the length of complainant’s articles were set by National Labor Relations Commission.14
respondents. The CA rendered its assailed Decision on June 11, 2002. It set aside
Inevitably, respondents would have no control over when or where the NLRC Decision and dismissed petitioner’s Complaint. It held that
complainant wrote her articles as she was a columnist who could the NLRC misappreciated the facts and rendered a ruling wanting in
produce an article in thirty (3) (sic) months or three (3) days, substantial evidence. The CA said:
depending on her mood or the amount of research required for an The Court does not agree with public respondent NLRC’s
article but her actions were controlled by her obligation to produce an conclusion. First, private respondent admitted that she was and [had]
article a week. If complainant did not have to report for work eight (8) never been considered by petitioner PDI as its employee. Second, it
hours a day, six (6) days a week, it is because her task was mainly is not disputed that private respondent had no employment contract
mental. Lastly, the fact that her articles were (sic) published weekly with petitioner PDI. In fact, her engagement to contribute articles for
for three (3) years show that she was respondents’ regular publication was based on a verbal agreement between her and the
employee, not a once-in-a-blue-moon contributor who was not under petitioner’s Lifestyle Section Editor. Moreover, it was evident that
any pressure or obligation to produce regular articles and who wrote private respondent was not required to report to the office eight (8)
at his own whim and leisure.10 hours a day. Further, it is not disputed that she stayed in New York
PDI appealed the Decision to the NLRC. In a Decision dated August for six (6) months without petitioner’s permission as to her leave of
23, 1994, the NLRC Second Division dismissed the appeal thereby absence nor was she given any disciplinary action for the same.
affirming the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. The NLRC initially noted that These undisputed facts negate private respondent’s claim that she is
PDI failed to perfect its appeal, under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an employee of petitioner.
due to non-filing of a cash or surety bond. The NLRC said that the Moreover, with regards (sic) to the control test, the public respondent
reason proffered by PDI for not filing the bond – that it was difficult or NLRC’s ruling that the guidelines given by petitioner PDI for private
impossible to determine the amount of the bond since the Labor respondent to follow, e.g. in terms of space allocation and length of
Arbiter did not specify the amount of the judgment award – was not article, is not the form of control envisioned by the guidelines set by
persuasive. It said that all PDI had to do was compute based on the the Supreme Court. The length of the article is obviously limited so
amount it was paying petitioner, counting the number of weeks from that all the articles to be featured in the paper can be
accommodated. As to the topic of the article to be published, it is but
logical that private respondent should not write morbid topics such as circumstance which is likewise present in this case. In said case, the
death because she is contributing to the lifestyle section. Other than Court stated,
said given limitations, if the same could be considered limitations, the As a rule, compliance with the requirements for the perfection of an
topics of the articles submitted by private respondent were all her appeal within the reglamentary (sic) period is mandatory and
choices. Thus, the petitioner PDI in deciding to publish private jurisdictional. However, in National Federation of Labor Unions v.
respondent’s articles only controls the result of the work and not the Ladrido as well as in several other cases, this Court relaxed the
means by which said articles were written. requirement of the posting of an appeal bond within the reglementary
As such, the above facts failed to measure up to the control test period as a condition for perfecting the appeal. This is in line with the
necessary for an employer-employee relationship to exist.15 principle that substantial justice is better served by allowing the
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution appeal to be resolved on the merits rather than dismissing it based
dated September 11, 2002. She then filed the present Petition for on a technicality.
Review. The judgment of the Labor Arbiter in this case merely stated that
In a Resolution dated April 29, 2005, the Court, without giving due petitioner was entitled to backwages, 13th month pay and service
course to the petition, ordered the Labor Arbiter to clarify the amount incentive leave pay without however including a computation of the
of the award due petitioner and, thereafter, ordered PDI to post the alleged amounts.
requisite bond. Upon compliance therewith, the petition would be xxxx
given due course. Labor Arbiter Amansec clarified that the award In the case of NFLU v. Ladrido III, this Court postulated that "private
under the Decision amounted to P15,350.00. Thus, PDI posted the respondents cannot be expected to post such appeal bond
requisite bond on January 25, 2007.16 equivalent to the amount of the monetary award when the amount
We shall initially dispose of the procedural issue raised in the thereof was not included in the decision of the labor arbiter." The
Petition. computation of the amount awarded to petitioner not having been
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in not dismissing outright PDI’s clearly stated in the decision of the labor arbiter, private respondents
Petition for Certiorari for PDI’s failure to post a cash or surety bond in had no basis for determining the amount of the bond to be posted.
violation of Article 223 of the Labor Code. Thus, while the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly
This issue was settled by this Court in its Resolution dated April 29, followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against
2005.17 There, the Court held: needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business, the
But while the posting of a cash or surety bond is jurisdictional and is law does admit of exceptions when warranted by the circumstances.
a condition sine qua non to the perfection of an appeal, there is a Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably
plethora of jurisprudence recognizing exceptional instances wherein and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. But
the Court relaxed the bond requirement as a condition for posting the while this Court may relax the observance of reglementary periods
appeal. and technical rules to achieve substantial justice, it is not prepared to
xxxx give due course to this petition and make a pronouncement on the
In the case of Taberrah v. NLRC, the Court made note of the fact weighty issue obtaining in this case until the law has been duly
that the assailed decision of the Labor Arbiter concerned did not complied with and the requisite appeal bond duly paid by private
contain a computation of the monetary award due the employees, a respondents.18
Records show that PDI has complied with the Court’s directive for In other words, the test is whether the employer controls or has
the posting of the bond;19 thus, that issue has been laid to rest. reserved the right to control the employee, not only as to the work
We now proceed to rule on the merits of this case. done, but also as to the means and methods by which the same is
The main issue we must resolve is whether petitioner is an employee accomplished.30
of PDI, and if the answer be in the affirmative, whether she was Petitioner argues that several factors exist to prove that respondents
illegally dismissed. exercised control over her and her work, namely:
We rule for the respondents. a. As to the Contents of her Column – The PETITIONER had to
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is essentially a insure that the contents of her column hewed closely to the
question of fact.20 Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the objectives of its Lifestyle Section and the over-all principles that the
NLRC are generally accorded respect and finality if supported by newspaper projects itself to stand for. As admitted, she wanted to
substantial evidence.21 write about death in relation to All Souls Day but was advised not to.
Considering, however, that the CA’s findings are in direct conflict b. As to Time Control – The PETITIONER, as a columnist, had to
with those of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, this Court must now make observe the deadlines of the newspaper for her articles to be
its own examination and evaluation of the facts of this case. published. These deadlines were usually that time period when the
It is true that petitioner herself admitted that she "was not, and [had] Section Editor has to "close the pages" of the Lifestyle Section where
never been considered respondent’s employee because the terms of the column in located. "To close the pages" means to prepare them
works were arbitrarily decided upon by the respondent."22 However, for printing and publication.
the employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law As a columnist, the PETITIONER’s writings had a definite day on
and not by what the parties say it should be. 23 which it was going to appear. So she submitted her articles two days
This Court has constantly adhered to the "four-fold test" to determine before the designated day on which the column would come out.
whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between This is the usual routine of newspaper work. Deadlines are set to
parties.24 The four elements of an employment relationship are: (a) fulfill the newspapers’ obligations to the readers with regard to
the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of timeliness and freshness of ideas.
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to c. As to Control of Space – The PETITIONER was told to submit only
control the employee’s conduct.25 two or three pages of article for the column, (sic) "Feminist
Of these four elements, it is the power of control which is the most Reflections" per week. To go beyond that, the Lifestyle editor would
crucial26 and most determinative factor,27 so important, in fact, that already chop off the article and publish the rest for the next week.
the other elements may even be disregarded.28 As this Court has This shows that PRIVATE RESPONDENTS had control over the
previously held: space that the PETITIONER was assigned to fill.
the significant factor in determining the relationship of the parties is d. As to Discipline – Over time, the newspaper readers’ eyes are
the presence or absence of supervisory authority to control the trained or habituated to look for and read the works of their favorite
method and the details of performance of the service being regular writers and columnists. They are conditioned, based on their
rendered, and the degree to which the principal may intervene to daily purchase of the newspaper, to look for specific spaces in the
exercise such control.29 newspapers for their favorite write-ups/or opinions on matters
relevant and significant issues aside from not being late or amiss in it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict
the responsibility of timely submission of their articles. the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to
The PETITIONER was disciplined to submit her articles on highly promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike
relevant and significant issues on time by the PRIVATE the second, which address both the result and the means used to
RESPONDENTS who have a say on whether the topics belong to achieve it. x x x.33
those considered as highly relevant and significant, through the The main determinant therefore is whether the rules set by the
Lifestyle Section Editor. The PETITIONER had to discuss the topics employer are meant to control not just the results of the work but
first and submit the articles two days before publication date to keep also the means and method to be used by the hired party in order to
her column in the newspaper space regularly as expected or without achieve such results. Thus, in this case, we are to examine the
miss by its readers.31 factors enumerated by petitioner to see if these are merely
Given this discussion by petitioner, we then ask the question: Is this guidelines or if they indeed fulfill the requirements of the control test.
the form of control that our labor laws contemplate such as to Petitioner believes that respondents’ acts are meant to control how
establish an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and she executes her work. We do not agree. A careful examination
respondent PDI? reveals that the factors enumerated by the petitioner are inherent
It is not. conditions in running a newspaper. In other words, the so-called
Petitioner has misconstrued the "control test," as did the Labor control as to time, space, and discipline are dictated by the very
Arbiter and the NLRC. nature of the newspaper business itself.
Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate We agree with the observations of the Office of the Solicitor General
that the latter is an employee of the former. Rules which serve as that:
general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired The Inquirer is the publisher of a newspaper of general circulation
result are not indicative of the power of control.32 Thus, this Court which is widely read throughout the country. As such, public interest
has explained: dictates that every article appearing in the newspaper should
It should, however, be obvious that not every form of control that the subscribe to the standards set by the Inquirer, with its thousands of
hiring party reserves to himself over the conduct of the party hired in readers in mind. It is not, therefore, unusual for the Inquirer to control
relation to the services rendered may be accorded the effect of what would be published in the newspaper. What is important is the
establishing an employer-employee relationship between them in the fact that such control pertains only to the end result, i.e., the
legal or technical sense of the term. A line must be drawn submitted articles. The Inquirer has no control over [petitioner] as to
somewhere, if the recognized distinction between an employee and the means or method used by her in the preparation of her articles.
an individual contractor is not to vanish altogether. Realistically, it The articles are done by [petitioner] herself without any intervention
would be a rare contract of service that gives untrammelled freedom from the Inquirer.34
to the party hired and eschews any intervention whatsoever in his Petitioner has not shown that PDI, acting through its editors, dictated
performance of the engagement. how she was to write or produce her articles each week. Aside from
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve the constraints presented by the space allocation of her column,
as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result there were no restraints on her creativity; petitioner was free to write
without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining her column in the manner and style she was accustomed to and to
use whatever research method she deemed suitable for her purpose. must produce stories within his or her particular beat and cannot
The apparent limitation that she had to write only on subjects that switch to another beat without permission from the editor. In most
befitted the Lifestyle section did not translate to control, but was newspapers also, a reporter must inform the editor about the story
simply a logical consequence of the fact that her column appeared in that he or she is working on for the day. The story or article must
that section and therefore had to cater to the preference of the also be submitted to the editor at a specified time. Moreover, the
readers of that section. editor can easily pull out a reporter from one beat and ask him or her
The perceived constraint on petitioner’s column was dictated by her to cover another beat, if the need arises.
own choice of her column’s perspective. The column title "Feminist This is not the case for petitioner. Although petitioner had a weekly
Reflections" was of her own choosing, as she herself admitted, since deadline to meet, she was not precluded from submitting her column
she had been known as a feminist writer.35Thus, respondent PDI, as ahead of time or from submitting columns to be published at a later
well as her readers, could reasonably expect her columns to speak time. More importantly, respondents did not dictate upon petitioner
from such perspective. the subject matter of her columns, but only imposed the general
Contrary to petitioner’s protestations, it does not appear that there guideline that the article should conform to the standards of the
was any actual restraint or limitation on the subject matter – within newspaper and the general tone of the particular section.
the Lifestyle section – that she could write about. Respondent PDI Where a person who works for another performs his job more or less
did not dictate how she wrote or what she wrote in her column. at his own pleasure, in the manner he sees fit, not subject to definite
Neither did PDI’s guidelines dictate the kind of research, time, and hours or conditions of work, and is compensated according to the
effort she put into each column. In fact, petitioner herself said that result of his efforts and not the amount thereof, no employer-
she received "no comments on her articles…except for her to employee relationship exists.36
shorten them to fit into the box allotted to her column." Therefore, the Aside from the control test, this Court has also used the economic
control that PDI exercised over petitioner was only as to the finished reality test. The economic realities prevailing within the activity or
product of her efforts, i.e., the column itself, by way of either between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the
shortening or outright rejection of the column. totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the
The newspaper’s power to approve or reject publication of any relationship between the parties.37 This is especially appropriate
specific article she wrote for her column cannot be the control when, as in this case, there is no written agreement or contract on
contemplated in the "control test," as it is but logical that one who which to base the relationship. In our jurisdiction, the benchmark of
commissions another to do a piece of work should have the right to economic reality in analyzing possible employment relationships for
accept or reject the product. The important factor to consider in the purposes of applying the Labor Code ought to be the economic
"control test" is still the element of control over how the work itself is dependence of the worker on his employer. 38
done, not just the end result thereof. Petitioner’s main occupation is not as a columnist for respondent but
In contrast, a regular reporter is not as independent in doing his or as a women’s rights advocate working in various women’s
her work for the newspaper. We note the common practice in the organizations.39 Likewise, she herself admits that she also
newspaper business of assigning its regular reporters to cover contributes articles to other publications.40 Thus, it cannot be said
specific subjects, geographical locations, government agencies, or that petitioner was dependent on respondent PDI for her continued
areas of concern, more commonly referred to as "beats." A reporter employment in respondent’s line of business.41
The inevitable conclusion is that petitioner was not respondent PDI’s On the power of control, the Court found that in performing his work,
employee but an independent contractor, engaged to do Sonza only needed his skills and talent – how he delivered his lines,
independent work. appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-
There is no inflexible rule to determine if a person is an employee or CBN’s control.50 Thus:
an independent contractor; thus, the characterization of the We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance
relationship must be made based on the particular circumstances of that produced the finished product of SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did
each case.42 There are several factors43 that may be considered by not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely
the courts, but as we already said, the right to control is the dominant reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime schedule
factor in determining whether one is an employee or an independent "for more effective programming." ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the
contractor.44 quality of the shows and their standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABS-
In our jurisdiction, the Court has held that an independent contractor CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of
is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and performance of SONZA’s work.
undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on one’s own account SONZA claims that ABS-CBN’s power not to broadcast his shows
and under one’s own responsibility according to one’s own manner proves ABS-CBN’s power over the means and methods of the
and method, free from the control and direction of the principal in all performance of his work. Although ABS-CBN did have the option not
matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the to broadcast SONZA’s show, ABS-CBN was still obligated to pay
results thereof.45 SONZA’s talent fees... Thus, even if ABS-CBN was completely
On this point, Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation46 is dissatisfied with the means and methods of SONZA’s performance of
enlightening. In that case, the Court found, using the four-fold test, his work, or even with the quality or product of his work, ABS-CBN
that petitioner, Jose Y. Sonza, was not an employee of ABS-CBN, could not dismiss or even discipline SONZA. All that ABS-CBN could
but an independent contractor. Sonza was hired by ABS-CBN due to do is not to broadcast SONZA’s show but ABS-CBN must still pay
his "unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by his talent fees in full.
ordinary employees," a circumstance that, the Court said, was Clearly, ABS-CBN’s right not to broadcast SONZA’s show, burdened
indicative, though not conclusive, of an independent contractual as it was by the obligation to continue paying in full SONZA’s talent
relationship. Independent contractors often present themselves to fees, did not amount to control over the means and methods of the
possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish them from performance of SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN could not terminate or
ordinary employees.47 The Court also found that, as to payment of discipline SONZA even if the means and methods of performance of
wages, Sonza’s talent fees were the result of negotiations between his work - how he delivered his lines and appeared on television - did
him and ABS-CBN.48 As to the power of dismissal, the Court found not meet ABS-CBN’s approval. This proves that ABS-CBN’s control
that the terms of Sonza’s engagement were dictated by the contract was limited only to the result of SONZA’s work, whether to broadcast
he entered into with ABS-CBN, and the same contract provided that the final product or not. In either case, ABS-CBN must still pay
either party may terminate the contract in case of breach by the other SONZA’s talent fees in full until the expiry of the Agreement.
of the terms thereof.49 However, the Court held that the foregoing are In Vaughan, et al. v. Warner, et al., the United States Circuit Court of
not determinative of an employer-employee relationship. Instead, it is Appeals ruled that vaudeville performers were independent
still the power of control that is most important. contractors although the management reserved the right to delete
objectionable features in their shows. Since the management did not needed her talent and skill to come up with a column every week. As
have control over the manner of performance of the skills of the such, she had all the tools she needed to perform her work.
artists, it could only control the result of the work by deleting Considering that respondent PDI was not petitioner’s employer, it
objectionable features. cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal.
SONZA further contends that ABS-CBN exercised control over his WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is
work by supplying all equipment and crew. No doubt, ABS-CBN DISMISSED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
supplied the equipment, crew and airtime needed to broadcast the CA-G.R. SP No. 50970 are hereby AFFIRMED.
"Mel & Jay" programs. However, the equipment, crew and airtime SO ORDERED.
are not the "tools and instrumentalities" SONZA needed to perform ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
his job. What SONZA principally needed were his talent or skills and Associate Justice
the costumes necessary for his appearance. Even though ABS-CBN
provided SONZA with the place of work and the necessary WE CONCUR:
equipment, SONZA was still an independent contractor since ABS- CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
CBN did not supervise and control his work. ABS-CBN’s sole Associate Justice
concern was for SONZA to display his talent during the airing of the Chairperson
programs.
A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is
an independent contractor. SONZA’s work as television and radio MA. ALICIA MINITA V. CHICO-
program host required special skills and talent, which SONZA AUSTRIA- NAZARIO
admittedly possesses. The records do not show that ABS-CBN MARTINEZ Associate Justice
exercised any supervision and control over how SONZA utilized his Associate Justice
skills and talent in his shows.51
The instant case presents a parallel to Sonza. Petitioner was RUBEN T. REYES
engaged as a columnist for her talent, skill, experience, and her Associate Justice
unique viewpoint as a feminist advocate. How she utilized all these in
writing her column was not subject to dictation by respondent. As in
Sonza, respondent PDI was not involved in the actual performance
that produced the finished product. It only reserved the right to ATTESTATION
shorten petitioner’s articles based on the newspaper’s capacity to I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
accommodate the same. This fact, we note, was not unique to in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
petitioner’s column. It is a reality in the newspaper business that opinion of the Court’s Division.
space constraints often dictate the length of articles and columns, CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
even those that regularly appear therein. Associate Justice
Furthermore, respondent PDI did not supply petitioner with the tools Chairperson, Third Division
and instrumentalities she needed to perform her work. Petitioner only
 CERTIFICATION 20 Lopez v. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, September 3, 2007, 532
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the SCRA 56, 64, citing Manila Water Company, Inc. v. Peña, 434 SCRA
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the 53, 58 (2004).
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case 21 The Peninsula Manila, et al. v. Alipio, G.R. No. 167310, June 17,

was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. 2008, citing Trendline Employees Association-Southern Philippines
REYNATO S. PUNO Federation of Labor v. NLRC, 272 SCRA 172, 179 (1997).
Chief Justice 22 Reply to Respondent’s Position Paper, CA rollo, p. 40.

23 Insular Life Assurance, Inc. v. National Labor Relations

Footnotes Commission, G.R. No. 119930, March 12, 1993, 287 SCRA 476,
1 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate 483, citing Industrial Timber Corporation v. NLRC, 169 SCRA 341
Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Teodoro P. Regino, concurring; (1989).
rollo, pp. 101-106. 24 Lopez v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewage System, G.R. No.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate 154472, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 428, 442.
Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Remedios Salazar-Fernando, 25 Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa-Pinagbuklod

concurring; id. at 107. ng Manggagawang Promo ng Burlingame v. Burlingame

3 Id. at 89-98. Corporation, G.R. No. 162833, June 15, 2007 524 SCRA 690, 695,
4 Id. at 83-88. citing Sy v. Court of Appeals, 398 SCRA 301, 307-308 (2003);
5 Position Paper for Complainant, CA rollo, p. 39. Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld, G.R. No.
6 Also named in parts of the records as "Lolita" or "Lita." 166920, February 19, 2007, 516 SCRA 209, 228.
7 Reply to Respondent’s Position Paper, CA rollo, p. 40. 26 Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing and Parts Corporation, G.R. No.

8 Petition for Certiorari, G.R. No. 117605, CA rollo, p. 4. 159890, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 368, 379.
9 Rollo, p. 88. 27 Sandigan Savings and Loan Bank, Inc v. National Labor Relations

10 Id. at 86-87. Commission, 324 Phil. 358 (1996), citing Ruga v. NLRC, 181 SCRA
11 Id. at 96. 266, 273 (1990). See also Coca Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. v.
12 Docketed as G.R. No. 117605, CA rollo, pp. 2-18. Climaco, G.R. No. 146881, February 5, 2007, 514 SCRA 164, 177.
13 CA rollo, p. 209. 28 Sandigan Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., v. National Labor

14 356 Phil. 811 (1998). Relations Commission, supra, citing Sara v. Agarrado, 166 SCRA
15 Supra note 1. 625, 630 (1988).
16 Manifestation and Compliance, rollo, pp. 410-416. 29 AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations

17 Penned by Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, with Associate Commission, 334 Phil. 712, 721-722 (1997).
Justices Reynato S. Puno (now Chief Justice), Ma. Alicia Austria- 30 Lazaro v. Social Security Commission, 479 Phil. 385, 389-390

Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now retired), and Minita V. Chico- (2004), citing Investment Planning Corporation v. Social Security
Nazario, concurring; id. at 380-393. System, 21 SCRA 924, 928-929 (1967). See also Abante, Jr. v.
18 Id. at 387-392. (Citations omitted.) Lamadrid Bearing and Parts Corporation, supra note 26.
19 Supra note 16. 31 Rollo, pp. 75-76.
32 Manila Electric Company v. Benamira, G.R. No. 145271, July 14, (f) the length of time for which the person is employed;
2005, 463 SCRA 331, 352-353. (Citations omitted.) (g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;
33 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations (h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the
Commission, G.R. No. 84484, November 15, 1989, 179 SCRA 459, employer;
464-465; Consulta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145443, March 18, (i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of
2005, 453 SCRA 732, 740-741; Manila Electric Company v. master and servant; and
Benamira, supra. (j) whether the principal is or is not in business.
34 Manifestation and Motion of the Office of the Solicitor General, 44 Arkansas Transit Homes, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty, supra note

rollo, p. 192. 42.

35 Reply to Position Paper of Respondents, CA rollo, p. 43. 45 Chavez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.

36 Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing and Parts Corporation, supra note 146530, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 478, 491, citing Tan v.
26, citing Encyclopedia Britannica (Philippines), Inc. v. NLRC, 264 Lagrama, 387 SCRA 393 (2002).
SCRA 1, 7 (1996). 46 G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 583.

37 Francisco v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 47 Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, id. at 595.

170087, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 690, 697. 48 Id. at 595-596.

38 Id. at 699. 49 Id. at 597.

39 CA rollo, p. 200. 50 Id. at 600.

40 Reply to Respondent’s Position Paper, CA rollo, p. 43. 51 Id. at 600-603. (Citations omitted.)

41 See Francisco v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra

note 37.
42 Arkansas Transit Homes, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 341 Ark.

317, 16 S.W.3d 545 (2000).

43 The court in Arkansas lists the following factors to be considered in

determining whether one is an employee or independent contractor:

(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may
exercise over the details of the work;
(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct
occupation or business;
(c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether in the locality,
the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a
specialist without supervision;
(d) the skill required in the particular occupation;
(e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the
instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing
the work;