G.R. No.
192084 September 14, 2011
JOSE MEL BERNARTE, Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (PBA), JOSE EMMANUEL M. EALA, and PERRY
MARTINEZ,Respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Bernarte, along with fellow PBA referee Renato Guevarra, alleged that they were illegally
dismissed by PBA when their respective retainer contracts as referees were not renewed after two
successive contracts in 2003. As a result, they filed a complaint of illegal dismissal before the Labor
Arbiter. Complainant alleged that their repeated rehiring by PBA made them employees of the latter. In
addition, complainant alleged that PBA exercised control over the performance of his work as evidenced
by the stipulations on his contract which therefore rendered him an employee of PBA. Among the
stipulations raised by the petitioner where his being subjected to rating as referee, being required to attend
all basketball games by the PBA, to comply with all the requirements of the PBA governing the conduct
of the referees in and out of the court, to keep himself in good physical, mental and emotional condition
during the term of the contract, and being prohibited to officiate other basketball games outside the PBA
and to conduct himself according to the highest standards of honesty or morality, among others.
Labor Arbiter declared petitioner was an employee of PBA who was illegally dismissed and ordered the
latter to reinstate him with backwages and damages. NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. On appeal,
Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC declaring that petitioner was not an employee of PBA
but an independent contractor. It ruled that PBA did not exercise control over the means and methods in
the performance of the complainant’s work. Hence the instant appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed as an employee of the respondent PBA?
RULING
No. The petition is bereft of merit.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has consistently applied the
four-fold test, to wit: (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 so-called "control test" is the most important indicator of the
presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. The allegation by the complainant of the
control imposed on him by the respondent was not sustained by the Court ruling that those are mere
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods
to be employed in attaining it quoting from Sonza V. ABS-CBN and Insular Life V. NLRC.
The Court held that the referees exercise their own independent judgement, based on the rules of the
game, as to when and how a call or decision is to be made which decision PBA cannot overrule. The
referees are the only, absolute, and final authority on the playing court and respondent cannot control the
referee when he blows the whistle because such authority exclusively belongs to the referee.
The Court ruled petitioner is an Independent Contractor as indicated by the circumstances of his contract
particularly the number of hours required from him in the performance of his work and the non-deduction
from his fees of the statutory deductions such as the SSS, Philhealth and PagIBIG contributions which
are regularly deducted from employees. As an independent contractor, the repeated rehiring of the
petitioner does not prove that he is an employee but a mere renewal of the contract between him and the
PBA which the latter may or may not renew upon expiration either for unsatisfactory performance or
violation of its terms and conditions.
The Court also cited applicable foreign case law declaring 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 (Yonan V. US Soccer Federation, Inc.).
Wherefore, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals.
