Orozco v.

CA

G.R. No. 155207

August 13, 2008

FACTS:
Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) engaged the services of petitioner to write a weekly column for its
Lifestyle section. She religiously submitted her articles every week, except for a six-month stint in
New York City when she, sent several articles through mail. On November 7, 1992, petitioner’s
column appeared in the PDI for the last time. Petitioner claims that her then editor, Logarta, told her
that respondent Leticia Jimenez Magsanoc, PDI Editor in Chief, wanted to stop publishing her
column for no reason at all and advised petitioner to talk to Magsanoc herself. Petitioner narrates
that when she talked to Magsanoc, the latter informed her that it was PDI Chairperson Apostol who
had asked to stop publication of her column, but According to Apostol, it was Magsanoc that
informed her that the Lifestyle section already had many columnists. In a meeting conducted by
Magsanoc and the Lifestyle section editor on how to improve said section. They agreed to cut down
the number of columnists. In their judgment, petitioner’s column failed to meet the high standards
of the newspaper. Hence, they decided to terminate petitioner’s column. Petitioner filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and other money claims before the
NLRC. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of petitioner. PDI appealed the Decision to the NLRC, the latter
dismissed the appeal. PDI then filed a Petition for Review before this Court but it referred the case
to the CA, the latter set aside the NLRC Decision and dismissed petitioner’s Complaint. It held that
the NLRC misappreciated the facts and rendered a ruling wanting in substantial evidence.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner, as a newspaper columnist, is an employee of the newspaper (PDI) which publishes
the column.

RATIO:
No. This Court has constantly adhered to the "four-fold test" to determine whether there exists an
employer-employee relationship between parties. The four elements of an employment relationship
are: (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 four elements,
it is the power of control which is the most crucial and most determinative factor. 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. Although petitioner had a weekly deadline to meet, she
was not precluded from submitting her column ahead of time or from submitting columns to be
published at a later time. More importantly, respondents did not dictate upon petitioner the subject
matter of her columns, but only imposed the general guideline that the article should conform to the
standards of the newspaper and the general tone of the particular section. Where a person who
works for another performs his job more or less at his own pleasure, in the manner he sees fit, not
subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated according to the result of his
efforts and not the amount thereof, no employer-employee relationship exists. Aside from the
control test, this Court has also used the economic reality test. Petitioner’s main occupation is not
as a columnist for respondent but as a women’s rights advocate working in various women’s
organizations. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner was dependent on respondent PDI for her
continued employment in respondent’s line of business.