The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the 94 members of the Talents Association of GMA (TAG) are the media giant’s regular employees, marking a landmark victory for the TAG’s 11-year battle.

In a resolution made public on Saturday, January 24, the SC Third Division upheld the Court of Appeals (CA) decision that ruled the 94 TAG members as regular employees of GMA Network.

“Talents are regular employees, deserving of security and statutory benefits. We believed that since the beginning, and now there is jurisprudence to protect the next generation of media workers in the Philippines,” TAG said in a statement.

The SC, in the same decision, also ordered the reinstatement of illegally dismissed GMA talents without loss of seniority rights and other privileges.

They are also entitled to full backwages, including allowances “and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement.”

“In the event that reinstatement is no longer an option, Respondents in G.R. No. 254711 shall be awarded separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service. Full backwages shall then be computed from the date of their dismissal until the finality of this Resolution.”

There were two petitions that reached the High Court for this case. In GR No. 250673, the issue was whether the GMA talents were the network’s regular employees. In the separate GR No. 254711, the question was whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment.

In GR No. 250673, GMA Network argued that their talents are not regular employees, but rather independent contractors as stated in their talent agreements. However, the SC deduced that the respondents were not independent contractors based on the general terms attached to their Talent Agreement.

GMA Network also used the Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation case, where the SC declared television personality Jay Sonza as an independent contractor.

“GMA cannot seek refuge in the Court’s ruling in Sonza, where the Court did not consider the exclusivity clause in Sonza’s contract as a form of control. Essentially, the monthly talent fee received by Sonza in 1994 amounted to at least PHP 300,000.00, whereas respondents’ salaries ranged from PHP 13,000.00 to PHP 84,000.00 in 2015,” the SC said.

“Given the foregoing, respondents cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as independent contractors. The Court will not countenance the provision in the Talent Agreement classifying respondents as independent contractors when the contract, taken as a whole, shows otherwise,” the High Court added.

Talents are regular employees

To determine an employer-employee relationship, the SC said the available jurisprudence suggests the use of the four-fold test:

• Employer’s selection and engagement of the employee
• Payment of wages
• Power to dismiss
• Power to control the employee’s conduct

According to the High Court, the said relationship exists when the person whom the services are performed for have the right to control not only the end results, but also the manner and means used to achieve the goal.

“Applying the four-fold test in the instant case, the Court finds and so holds that an employer-employee relationship exists between GMA and respondents,” the SC ruled.

The SC explained that GMA used measures to filter candidates for talent engagement. It also found that the network paid talent fees twice each month and that GMA actually admitted the talent fees are payments for the services provided by the talents.

In addition, the SC also found that GMA has the power to discipline the talents through reprimand, suspension, and termination of contract. As per control, GMA “reserved the right to creative, editorial, administrative, financial, and legal control over the program, and respondents are expected to submit to GMA’s judgment on such aspects of production.”

“Plain as day, there exists an employer-employee relationship between GMA and respondents,” the SC ruled, adding that the talents are GMA’s regular employees.

“Plain as day, we — the production assistants, researchers, writers, producers, artists, coordinators, and cameramen behind some of your most favorite GMA news and public affairs programs — were employees entitled to protection from the very beginning,” TAG said.

On illegal dismissal

In GR No. 254711, GMA and its chairman Felipe Gozon argued the 15 respondents were validly dismissed due to mass unauthorized absences which caused delays in production.

The Court said that under a GMA memorandum, the penalty for first-time offenders of unauthorized absence is a written reminder. However, the network failed to prove that the 15 respondents missed one to two schedules, and that nothing in the records showed that they committed the same offenses in the past.

As for the other 35 respondents, the SC also found their dismissal unlawful. The Court said the termination of an agreement also needs a written notice.

“Thence, GMA’s failure to give written notices of renewal to the 35 respondents is inexcusable. There being no written notice, the 35 respondents cannot be faulted for believing that no offer to renew was coming. Elsewise stated, the 35 respondents had nothing to decline,” the SC said.

“At this juncture, the Court emphasizes anew that a regular employee has the right to security of tenure and cannot be dismissed from service unless grounded on just or authorized causes,” it added.

A long battle

This long battle dragged on for nearly 12 years. It started on April 14, 2014, when GMA issued an order asking its talents to follow the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s policy for independent contractors to issue invoices for talent fees.

“It was an undue burden on talents who actually perform regular work for the network. We formed the Talents Association of GMA to negotiate terms. That being unproductive, we went to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to file a regularization case,” the TAG said.

On June 25, 2015, Labor Arbiter Julio Gayaman declared TAG employees as regular employees, pushing GMA to elevate the case to the NLRC proper. The NLRC upheld Gayaman’s findings, but GMA still appealed this decision.

GMA went to the CA on January 5, 2016 when the NLRC’s Special 4th Division junked its appeal. Three years later, on February 20, 2019, the CA Special 14th Division junked GMA’s petition and upheld the NLRC’s decision.

The network filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, but the appellate court junked it on November 25, 2019, upholding its earlier decision. This prompted GMA to go to the SC on January 20, 2020.

“This should not have taken 11 years. This should not have happened at all. It is time for media companies, especially broadcast networks, to scrap its longtime practice of contractualization through a talent system. It is time to protect Filipino media workers,” TAG said.

“This should not have cost us this much to fight. But we are glad we did. This is our gift to the next generation,” it added. – Rappler.com