Sampaguita Pictures and LVN Pictures

vs.
Philippine Musicians Guild and CIR
G.R. No. L-12598 January 28, 1961
G.R. No. L-12582 January 28, 1961
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/27/14 12:48:29 AM
Finish: 6/27/14 2:02:44 AM

Nature of the Case
A joint petition for certiorari against order of CIR certifying that private respondent he sole and exclusive bargaining agency of all musicians
working with said companies [including Premiere Productions, Inc.].

Facts
Private respondent was granted their petition before the CIR to be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency for all musicians
working in the aforementioned companies and that the petitioners exercised the power of control over the member musicians of private
respondent. Petitioners contested and averred that said musicians are independent contractors and not employees, citing a few cases. The
lower court denied their pretense and so did the Supreme Court en banc. Thus the separate petitions consolidated by this court.


Issue(s)
(1). Are the musicians employees of the petitioners?

Held
(1). Yes.

The SC fully agreed with the decision of the lower court which went as far as relating the issue to similar US cases (the normal
course of procedure when a motion picture is made, US Congress intention to eliminate the cause of labor disputes and industrial
strikes, and the definition of an employee which separates him from an independent contractor) to determine the legal relationship
between the musicians and the company, and ruled that the exercise of the power control [(1) by calling the musicians through 'call
slips' in 'the name of the company; (2) by arranging schedules in its studio for recording sessions; (3) by furnishing transportation
and meals to musicians; and (4) by supervising and directing in detail, through the motion picture director, the performance of the
musicians before the camera, in order to suit the music they are playing to the picture which is being flashed on the screen] was
evident in the petitioners and thus declared that the member musicians of the private respondent are entitled to the right on
collective bargaining.

The petitioners cited a long line of cases which were insignificant to the issue at bar. The Maligaya Case had a stronger case that
the workers were independent contractors. The Sunripe Case had piece workers who were not independent contractors but were
actually employees, as indeed the musicians in this case are. The Phil. Manufacturing Company Case had casual whereas in the
case at bar the musicians form an integral part of the motion picture. The Viana Case wherein the relation between the parties were
unsettled and remanded to the Workmens Compensation Commission for further evidence. The Josefa Case where no labor law
was construed in the case.

The Court delineated the function of the musical director from the motion picture director (an employee of the petitioner) so that the
latter exercised the power of control by: (1) supervising the musicians on what to do in detail; and (2) solely directing the
performance of the musicians and actors in the camera. And indeed, it was testified in the lower court that "the movie director tells
the musical director what to do; tells the music to be cut or tells additional music in this part or he eliminates the entire music he
does not (want) or he may want more drums or move violin or piano, as the case may be". The movie director "directly controls the
activities of the musicians." He "says he wants more drums and the drummer plays more" or "if he wants more violin or he does not
like that."

The aforementioned overall amounts to control over the means used by the musicians so that employment relationship exists
between the member musicians of private respondent and petitioners.