WILHELMINA S. OROZCO,
petitioner, vs. THE FIFTH DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, and LETICIA JIMENEZ MAGSANOC, respondents
G. R. No. 155207 August 13, 2008
FACTS:
In March 1990, PDI engaged the services of Orozco to write a
weekly column for its Lifestyle section. She religiously submitted her articles
every week and received a compensation of P250, which was later increased to
P300, for every column published.
On November 1992, the Editor-in-Chief of PDI, wanted to stop
publishing her column for no reason at all and petitioner was advised to talk
to Magsanoc, the Editor-in Chief, herself. According to the petitioner,
Magsanoc informed her that it was PDI Chairperson Eugenia Apostol who had asked
to stop publication of her column, but that in a telephone conversation with
Apostol, Apostol said that Magsanoc informed her that the Lifestyle section
already had many columnists.
On the other hand, PDI claims that Magsanoc met with the
Lifestyle section editor to discuss how to improve said section. They agreed to
cut down the number of columnists by keeping only those whose columns were
well-written, with regular feedback and following. In their judgment,
petitioner’s column failed to improve, continued to be superficially and poorly
written, and failed to meet the high standards of the newspaper. Hence, they
decided to terminate petitioner’s column.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a newspaper columnist is an employee of the
newspaper which publishes the column
RULING:
In determining whether there exist an employer-employee
relationship between parties, the Court has constantly adhered to 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’s conduct.
Of these elements, the most crucial and most determinative
factor is the power of control. The test is whether the employer controls or
has reserved the right to control the employee, not only as to the work done,
but also as to the means and methods which the same is accomplished.
Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party
indicate that the latter is an employee of the former. Rules which serve as
general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result are
not indicative of the power of control.
The main determinant therefore is whether the rules set by
the employer are meant to control not just the results of the work but also the
means and method to be used by the hired party in order to achieve such result.
Petitioner has not shown that PDI dictated how she was to
write or produce her articles each week. Aside from the constraints presented
by the space allocation of her column, there were no restraints on her
creativity; petitioner was free to write her column in the manner and style she
was accustomed to and to use whatever research method she deemed suitable for
her purpose. The apparent limitation that she had to write only on the subjects
that befitted the Lifetsyle section did not translate to control, but was
simply a logical consequence of the fact that her column appeared in that section
and therefore had to cater to the preference of the readers of that section.
The newspaper’s power to approve or reject publication of
any specific article she wrote for her column cannot be the control
contemplated in the “control test,” as it is but logical that one who
commissions another to do a piece of work should have the right to accept or
reject the product. The important factor to consider in the control test is
still the element of control over how the work itself is done, not just the end
result thereof.
Comments
Post a Comment