Scribd
Upload
78 views2 pages

#45 - Paragale v. Gma

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) An employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and GMA Network based on the selection and engagement of the employees, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and GMA's control over the means and methods of work. 2) The petitioners were regular employees because their work was necessary and desirable to GMA's usual business as journalists, based on their repeated engagement over many years. 3) As regular employees, the petitioners' dismissals were illegal because GMA failed to prove a just or authorized cause for termination and did not provide due notice and a hearing.

Uploaded by

Kê Milan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views2 pages

#45 - Paragale v. Gma

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) An employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and GMA Network based on the selection and engagement of the employees, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and GMA's control over the means and methods of work. 2) The petitioners were regular employees because their work was necessary and desirable to GMA's usual business as journalists, based on their repeated engagement over many years. 3) As regular employees, the petitioners' dismissals were illegal because GMA failed to prove a just or authorized cause for termination and did not provide due notice and a hearing.

Uploaded by

Kê Milan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

#45. PARAGELE, et.al. V. GMA NETWORK, INC.

G.R. NO. 235315, July 13, 2020

ISSUE:
1. Whether employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and GMA.
2. Whether the petitioners are regular employees.
3. Whether or not petitioners are illegally dismissed.

INSTRUCTION LEARNED:
1. Yes.

To determine the existence of [an employer- employee relationship], case law has
consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished.

Of these criteria, the so- called "control test" is generally regarded as the most crucial
and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where
the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only
the end result but also the manner and means utilized to achieve the same.

2. In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular,


the applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.
The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that can be assessed
by looking into the nature of the services rendered and its relation to the general
scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in the usual course. It is
distinguished from a specific undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities
required in carrying on the particular business or trade. The repeated engagement of
petitioners over the years only reinforces the indispensability of their services to
GMA's business. Mindful of these considerations, this Court is certain that the
petitioners were GMA

3. As regular employees, petitioners enjoy the right to security of tenure. Thus, they may
only be terminated for just or authorized cause, and after due notice and hearing. The
burden to prove that a dismissal was anchored on a just or authorized cause rests on
the employer. The employer's failure to discharge this burden leads to no other

RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
JD 4A
LABOR LAW REVIEW
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
JD 4A
LABOR LAW REVIEW

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy