BEGINO VS ABS-CBN-Respondent ABS-CBN Corporation is a television and radio broadcasting corporation which, for its Regional Network Group in Naga City, employed respondent Amalia Villafuerte as manager. There is no dispute regarding the fact that, thru Villafuerte, ABS-CBN engaged the services of petitioners Nelson Begino and Gener Del Valle sometime in 1996 as Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners Cristina Sumayao and Monina avila Llorin were likewise similarly engaged as reporters in 1996 and 2002 respectively. With their services engaged by respondents thru talent contract which though regularly renewed over the years.

While specifically providing that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to establish and Er-Ee relationship

Claiming that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN, petitioner filed against respondent the complaints before the NLRC, Naga City. In support of their claims for regularization, underpayment of overtime pay and other money claims petitioners alleged that they performed functions necessary and desirable in ABS-CBNs business.

In refutation of the foregoing assertions on the other hand, respondent argued that, although it occasionally engages in production and generates programs thru various means, ABS-CBN is primarily engaged in the business of broadcasting television and radio content. Not having the full manpower complement to produce its own program, the company allegedly resorted to engaging independent contractors.

Respondent insisted that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and/or Project assignment forms, petitioners were hired as talents. Fully aware that they are not considered or to consider themselves as employees of a particular production.

Having been terminated during the pendency of the case petitioner filed on July 10 2007 a second complaint against respondents for regularization, payment of labor standard benefits, illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.

Upon respondents motion, this complaint was dismissed for violation of the rules against forum shopping.

On December 10, 2007 Labor arbiter Jesus Orlando Quiones resolved in favor of petitioners,

Aggrieved by the foregoing decision, respondent elevated the case on appeal before the NLRC, during the pendency of which petitioners filed a third complaint against the former, for illegal dismissal, regularization, non-payment of salaries and 13th month pay, unfair labor practice, damages and attorneys fee.

Finding that respondents control over petitioners was indeed manifest from the exclusivity clause and prohibitions in the talent contracts and/or project assignment forms, the NLRC affirmed the decision of said Labor Arbiter.

Respondent filed for certiorari under the CA, wherein on June 29 2011, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision reversing the findings of the Labor arbiter and NLRC. Ruling out the existence of forum shopping on the ground that petitioners second and third complaints were primarily anchored on their termination from employment after the filing of their first complaint. The CA nevertheless discounted the existence of an employer-employee relation between the parties.

ISSUE: WON there is an Er-Ee relationship between the parties.

Held: it has been ruled that the foregoing provision contemplates four kinds of employees, namely: (a) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (b)project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee; (c) seasonal employees or those who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season; and (d) casual employees or who are not regular project or seasonal employee.

The court finds that, notwithstanding the nomenclature of their talent contracts and/or project assignment forms and the terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN. Time and again, it has been ruled that the test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer

In finding that petitioners were regular employees, the NLRC further ruled that the exclusivity clause and prohibition in their talent contracts and/or project assignment forms were likewise indicative of respondents control over them.

Wherefore, the decision of the CA are reversed and set aside

DAVID VS MACASIO-In January 2009, Mascasion filed before the LA a complaint against Ariel David, doing business under the name and style Yiels Hog Dealer, for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay. He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fee. Macasio also claimed payment for service incentive leave.

Macasio alleged before the LA that he had been working as butcher for David since January 6, 1995. Macasio claimed that David exercised effective control and supervision over his work.

In his defense, David claimed that he started his hog dealer business in 2005 and that he only has ten employees. He alleged that he hired Macasio as butcher or chopper on pakyaw or task basis who is, therefore, not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay pursuant to the provision of the implementing rules and regulation.

Macasio disputed Davids allegations. He argued that, first, David did not start his business only in 2005. He pointed to the Certificate of Employment. Second, he reported for work every day which the payroll or time record could have easily proved.

David claimed that he issued the Certificate of Employment, upon Macasios request only for overseas employment purposes.

In the April 30, 2009 decision, the LA dismissed Macasios complaint for lack of merit. The LA gave credence to Davids claim that he engaged Macasio on pakyaw or task basis.

The NLRC, in its May 26, 2010 decision, affirmed the LA ruling.

The CA, in November 22, 2010 decision, granted macasios certiorari and reversed the NLRCs ruling for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. While the CA agreed with the LA and NLRC that Macasio was a task basis employee, it nevertheless found Macasio entitiled to his monetary claims following the doctrine laid down in Serrano vs Severiino Santos Transit. The CA explained that as task basis employee, Macasio is excluded from the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay only if he is likewise a field personnel

Issue: WON an Er-Ee relationship existed? WON Macasio is entitled to holiday,SIL and 13th month pay

Held at the outset, we reject the assertion of the petitioner. Enagagement on pakyaw or task basis does not characterize the relationship that may exist between the parties, i.e., whether one of employment or independent contractorship.

First, the LA and the NLRC denied Macasios claim not because of the absence of an Er-Ee but because of its finding since Macasio is paid on Pakyar or task basis.

Second, we consider it crucial, that in the separate illegal dismissal case Macasio filed with the LA, the LA, the NLRC and the CA uniformly found the existence of an Er-Ee relationship.

In other words, aside from being factual in nature, the existence of an Er-Ee relationship is in fact a non-issue in this case.

In short, in determining whether workers engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis" is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the workers time and performance is the key: if the worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of "field personnel" under the law, then he is not entitled to these monetary benefits.

Macasio does not fall under the classification of "field personnel" not being a field personnel, we find the CA to be legally correct when it reversed the NLRCs ruling dismissing Macasios complaint for holiday and SIL pay for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.