JOSE MEL BERNARTE, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (PBA), JOSE EMMANUEL M. EALA, AND PERRY MARTINEZ, respondents.
G. R. No. 192084 September 14, 2011
FACTS:
Complainants Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra aver that
they were invited to join the PBA as referees and were made to sign contracts
on year-to-year basis. However during the term of a new commissioner, Eala,
changes were made on the terms of their employment.
On January 15, 2004, Bernarte received a letter from the
Commissioner advising him that his contract would not be renewed citing his
unsatisfactory performance on and off the court. It was a total shock for
Bernarte who was awarded Referee of the year in 2003. He felt that the
dismissal was caused by his refusal to fix a game.
On the other hand, beginning 2002, complainant Guevarra
signed a yearly contract as Regular Class C referee. On May 6, 2003, respondent
Martinez issued a memorandum to Guevarra expressing dissatisfaction over his
questioning on the assignment of referees officiating out-of-town games.
Beginning February 2004, he was no longer made to sign a contract.
Respondents aver that complainants were not illegally
dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA. According to them,
complainants entered into 2 contracts of retainer with the PBA in the year 2003
for the period of Jan. 1, 2003 to July 15, 2003 and September 1 to December
2003. After the lapse of the second contract, PBA decided not to renew their
contracts.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is an employee of respondent and
has been illegally dismissed.
RULING:
In determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, case law has consistently applied the four-fold test: (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. The most important
indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship is
the so-called “control test.”
The very nature of petitioner’s job of officiating a
professional basketball game undoubtedly calls for freedom of control by respondents.
Once in the playing court, the referees exercise their own independent
judgment, based on the rules of the game, as to when and how a call or decision
is to be made. The referees decided whether an infraction was committed, and
the PBA cannot overrule them once the decision is made on the playing court.
The referees are the only, absolute, and final authority on the playing court.
Respondents or any of the PBA officers cannot and do not determine which calls
to make or not to make and cannot control the referee when he blows the whistle
because such authority exclusively belongs to the referees.
Applicable foreign case law also declares that a referee is
an independent contractor, whose special
skills and independent judgment are required specifically for such position and
cannot possibly be controlled by the hiring party.
Comments
Post a Comment