Facts:
Respondent Dr. Dean N. Climaco
is a medical doctor who was hired by petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc
(Coca-Cola), by virtue of a Retainer
Agreement. The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was renewed
annually. The last one expired December 31, 1993. Despite the non-renewal of
the Retainer Agreement, respondent continued to perform his functions as
company doctor to Coca-Cola until he received a letter from petitioner company
concluding their retainership agreement. It is noted that as early as September
1992, petitioner was already making inquiries regarding his status with
petitioner company. Petitioner company, however, did not take any action.
Respondent inquired from the management of petitioner company whether it was
agreeable to recognize him as a regular employee. The management refused to do
so.
Respondent filed a Complaint
before the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee of petitioner company
and prayed for the payment of all benefits of a regular employee. While the
complaint was pending before the Labor Arbiter, respondent received a letter
from petitioner company concluding their retainership agreement effective 30
days from receipt thereof. This prompted respondent to file a complaint for
illegal dismissal against petitioner company. Respondent contend . The Labor
Arbiter and NLRC declared that there is no employer-employee relationship
existed between the parties. However, the Court of Appeals declared that
respondent should be classified as a regular employee having rendered 6 years
of service as plant physician by virtue of several renewed retainer agreements.
Issue: WON there exist an
employer-employee relationship between the parties
Ruling:
The court, in determining the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, has invariably adhered to the
four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal;
and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct.
The Court agrees with the
finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the circumstances of this case
show that no employer-employee relationship exist between the parties, they
correctly found that petitioner company lacked the power of control over the
performance by respondent of his duties. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the
Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondent’s objectives, duties and obligations, does not
tell respondent “how to conduct his physical examination, how to immunize, or
how to diagnose and treat his patients, employees of company, in each case.”
In effect, the Labor Arbiter
held that petitioner company, through the Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided
guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was achieved, but did not
control the means and methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks.
The NLRC affirmed the findings
of the Labor Arbiter and stated that it is precisely because the company lacks
the power of control that the contract provides that respondent shall be
directly responsible to the employee concerned and their dependents for any
injury, harm or damage caused through professional negligence, incompetence or
other valid causes of action.
In addition, the Court finds
that the schedule of work and the requirement to be on call for emergency cases
do not amount to such control, but are necessary incidents to the Retainership
Agreement. The Court agrees that there is nothing wrong with the employment of
respondent as a retained physician of petitioner company and upholds the
validity of the Retainership Agreement which clearly stated that no
employe-employee relationship existed between the parties. Considering that
there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination
of the Retainership Agreement , which is accordance with the provisions of the
Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment