Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    TAPE vs. Servana

    Uploaded by

    Loren Manda
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case about whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Televisions and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE, Inc.) and Roberto Servaña. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled Servaña was a regular employee but his termination was valid, while the NLRC reversed finding security services were not necessary to TAPE's business. However, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both found an employer-employee relationship did exist based on TAPE's control over Servaña's work and his five years of continuous service. While TAPE was liable for illegal dismissal, its president Antonio Tuviera was not solidarily liable without evidence of malice in Servaña's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TAPE vs. Servana

    Uploaded by

    Loren Manda
    1K views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case about whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Televisions and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE, Inc.) and Roberto Servaña. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled Servaña was a regular employee but his termination was valid, while the NLRC reversed finding security services were not necessary to TAPE's business. However, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both found an employer-employee relationship did exist based on TAPE's control over Servaña's work and his five years of continuous service. While TAPE was liable for illegal dismissal, its president Antonio Tuviera was not solidarily liable without evidence of malice in Servaña's

    Original Description:

    fgfsgf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case about whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Televisions and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE, Inc.) and Roberto Servaña. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled Servaña was a regular employee but his termination was valid, while the NLRC reversed finding security services were not necessary to TAPE's business. However, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both found an employer-employee relationship did exist based on TAPE's control over Servaña's work and his five years of continuous service. While TAPE was liable for illegal dismissal, its president Antonio Tuviera was not solidarily liable without evidence of malice in Servaña's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    TAPE vs. Servana

    Uploaded by

    Loren Manda
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case about whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Televisions and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE, Inc.) and Roberto Servaña. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled Servaña was a regular employee but his termination was valid, while the NLRC reversed finding security services were not necessary to TAPE's business. However, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both found an employer-employee relationship did exist based on TAPE's control over Servaña's work and his five years of continuous service. While TAPE was liable for illegal dismissal, its president Antonio Tuviera was not solidarily liable without evidence of malice in Servaña's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    12) Televisions and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE, Inc.) vs.

    Roberto Servaa
    G.R. No. 167648 January 28, 2008
    TINGA, J.:
    Doctrine: There is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the services
    are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the manner and
    means used to achieve that end.
    FACTS: TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs while
    Antonio Tuviera serves as its president. Roberto Servaa served as security guard for TAPE
    from 1987 until his services were termitated on 3 March 2000. Servaa filed a complaint for
    illegal dismissal agianst TAPE.He alleged that he was first connected with Agro-Commercial
    Security Agency but was later on absorbed by TAPE as a regular company guard. His services
    were terminated on account of TAPEs decision to contract the services of a professional
    security agency. Tape, on the other hand, alleged that Servaa was an independent contractor
    falling under the talent group category and was working under a special arrangement. It alleged
    that it was agreed that Servaa would render his services unitil such time that the company
    shall have engaged the services of a professional security agency.
    ISSUE: Whether or not there is an Employer-Employee relationship between TAPE and
    Servaa?
    LA RULING: Yes. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Servaa was a regular employee of Tape on
    account of the nature of the work of Servaa, which is securing and maintaining order in the
    studio, as necessary and desirable in the usual business of TAPE. However, the Labor Aribter
    ruled the termination valid on the ground of redundancy.
    NLRC RULING: No. The NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter on the ground security
    services may not be deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business of TAPE.
    CA RULING: Yes. The CA ruled that that Servaa was a regular employee considering the
    nature and length of his service.
    SC RULING:
    Yes. Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors to be considered in determining
    the existence of employer-employee relationship, namely: (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 with respect to the means and method by which the work is to be
    accomplished.
    Servaa was hired by TAPE when the latter absorbed him upon the expiration of his security
    agency contract with RPN-9. The monthly salary received by Servaa is considered wages
    despite being designated as talent fees by TAPE. The Memorandum informing Servaa of
    discontinuance of his services also proves that TAPE had the power to dismiss him. Control is
    also manifested in the bundy cards submitted by Servaa. He was required to report daily and
    observe definite work hours. He is also considered a regular employee by reason of his 5 year
    continuous service regardless of whether or not respondent had been performing work that is
    necessary or desirable to the usual business of TAPE. Thus being a regular employee, his
    services may not be terminated except for a just or authorized cause. TAPE is liable for illegal
    dismissal for it failure to comply the 1month requirement for termination of services as required
    by law. However, with respect to the liability of petitioner Tuviera, president of TAPE, absent any
    showing that he acted with malice or bad faith in terminating respondent, he cannot be held
    solidarily liable with TAPE.

    Submitted by: Loren Manda

    You might also like