Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bernarte vs. PBA, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Benedict Estrella
    24 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra were not employees of the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA). While the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission found they were illegally dismissed, the Court of Appeals determined they were independent contractors as the PBA did not exercise control over how they performed their work as referees. Applying the four-fold test of employment, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and found the PBA did not select or control the means and methods of work, showing Bernarte and Guevarra were independent contractors not subject to illegal dismissal.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra were not employees of the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA). While the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission found they were illegally dismissed, the Court of Appeals determined they were independent contractors as the PBA did not exercise control over how they performed their work as referees. Applying the four-fold test of employment, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and found the PBA did not select or control the means and methods of work, showing Bernarte and Guevarra were independent contractors not subject to illegal dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views2 pages

    Bernarte vs. PBA, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Benedict Estrella
    The Supreme Court ruled that Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra were not employees of the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA). While the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission found they were illegally dismissed, the Court of Appeals determined they were independent contractors as the PBA did not exercise control over how they performed their work as referees. Applying the four-fold test of employment, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and found the PBA did not select or control the means and methods of work, showing Bernarte and Guevarra were independent contractors not subject to illegal dismissal.

    Copyright:

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

    Bernarte vs.

    PBA, 2011

    FACTS:

     Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the
    PBA as referees. During the leadership of Commissioner Emilio Bernardino, they were made to
    sign contracts on a year-to-year basis. During the term of Commissioner Eala, however, changes
    were made on the terms of their employment.

     Complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA. Their
    respective contracts of retainer were simply not renewed. PBA had the prerogative of whether
    or not to renew their contracts, which they knew were fixed.

     The Labor Arbiter declared petitioner an employee whose dismissal by respondents was illegal.
    The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's judgment. The Court of Appeals, which overturned the
    decisions of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals found petitioner an independent
    contractor since respondents did not exercise any form of control over the means and methods
    by which petitioner performed his work as a basketball referee.

    ISSUE:

     Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents, which in turn determines whether petitioner


    was illegally dismissed.

    RULING:

     The petitioners are not employees of respondents.

     The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact. As a general


    rule, factual issues are beyond the province of this Court. However, this rule admits of
    exceptions, one of which is where there are conflicting findings of fact between the Court of
    Appeals, on one hand, and the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, on the other, such as in the present
    case.

     To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has consistently


    applied the four-fold test, to wit:

    - the selection and engagement of the employee;

    - the payment of wages;

    - the power of dismissal; and

    - the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the
    work is accomplished.

     The so-called "control test" is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an
    employer-employee relationship.

     The fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that petitioner is an
    employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered an employee, the hiring party must
    have control over the means and methods by which the hired party is to perform his work,
    which is absent in this case. The continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies the
    renewal of the contract between PBA and petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services
    rendered by petitioner warranting such contract renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to
    discontinue petitioner's services at the end of the term fixed in the contract, whether for
    unsatisfactory services, or violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, or for whatever
    other reason, the same merely results in the non-renewal of the contract, as in the present case.
    The non-renewal of the contract between the parties does not constitute illegal dismissal of
    petitioner by respondents.

    You might also like