Philippine SC rules GMA production staff were regular employees despite years of ‘talent’ contracts

In a resolution dated July 16, 2025, but made public last week, the court affirmed earlier rulings by labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals, rejecting GMA’s claim that the workers were freelancers. 

The decision ends a legal battle that began in 2014, when 142 production staff filed complaints seeking regularization. The workers, who included producers, researchers, cameramen, writers and graphic artists, had been required to sign contracts ranging from one month to five years, all explicitly stating that no employer-employee relationship existed. 

GMA maintained that the contracts were clear and binding. But the courts found that the reality of the working relationship told a different story. 

According to case records, the workers went through GMA’s standard hiring process, submitting résumés, undergoing background checks and medical exams, and attending formal interviews. 

“The contracts were a legal fiction,” the workers argued, pointing to the degree of control exercised by the company over how their work was performed. 

GMA countered by invoking the Supreme Court’s 2004 Sonza v. ABS-CBN ruling, where television host Jay Sonza was classified as an independent contractor. The network argued that exclusivity clauses and long-term engagements are common in the entertainment industry and do not automatically create an employment relationship. However, labor authorities and the courts distinguished the present case from Sonza. 

The Labor Arbiter noted that unlike Sonza, the production staff had no creative independence and were subject to GMA’s operational control. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), applying the four-fold test of employment, found that GMA selected and hired the workers, paid their wages through payslips, had the power to terminate their services, and exercised control over both the means and methods of their work. 

Ironically, the wording of GMA’s own contracts worked against it. One clause required workers to attend all productions, rehearsals, and meetings “according to such schedules as may be set by GMA.” 

Another stated that GMA retained “all creative, editorial, administrative, financial and legal control” over the programs, with workers required to defer to management’s judgment. 

In September 2015, the NLRC ruled that 97 of the original complainants were regular employees, after others had resigned or withdrawn from the case. 

In June 2015, they staged a protest rally. Fifty-three workers later filed a separate complaint for illegal dismissal. Fifteen workers stopped reporting for work following disputes over requirements from the Bureau of Internal Revenue to register as independent contractors and issue official receipts. 

The Labor Arbiter upheld the termination of the 15 workers but ruled that 35 others were illegally dismissed when GMA failed to renew their contracts. 

Back wages were computed at PHP 21.4 million. The Court of Appeals later reversed the ruling on the 15 workers, finding no proof of habitual neglect beyond a single incident, and affirmed that the 35 others had been illegally dismissed. 

The Supreme Court largely upheld these findings, denying GMA’s petition in the regularisation case and affirming that the workers were regular employees who had been illegally dismissed, with limited exceptions. 

The ruling serves as a sharp reminder that contract labels alone do not determine worker status. Courts will look beyond written agreements to the substance of the relationship, especially the degree of control exercised over workers performing core business functions. Long-term renewable contracts, when paired with operational control, can expose companies to significant legal and financial liability, particularly when disputes escalate after workers assert their rights.