COCA COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS.), INC./ERIC MONTINOLA, Manager, Petitioners, vs. DR. DEAN N. CLIMACO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 146881 February 5, 2007
Basis: Four-fold test in determining employee-employer relationship; employer’s lack of control over the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished by the employee means there is no employee-employer relationship.
FACTS:
Respondent Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by petitioner Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. by virtue of a Retainer Agreement which states that: the agreement is only for a period of 1 year beginning January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 (although can be renewed annually); compensation is fixed at P3,800.00 per month; respondent agrees to perform the duties and obligations in the Comprehensive Medical Plan; respondent is directly responsible to the employee concerned for any injury on the employee during the course of his examination, treatment, or consultation, if such injury was committed through professional negligence or incompetence or due to the other valid causes for action; respondent shall observe clinic hours at the company’s premises from Monday to Saturday of a minimum of two (2) hours each day or a maximum of two (2) hours each day or treatment from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and that he shall be on call at all times during the other workshifts to attend to emergency case/s; and that no employee-employer relationship shall exist between the parties whilst this contract is in effect, and in case of its termination, respondent shall be entitled only to such retainer fee as may be due him at the time of termination.
.jpg)
The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was renewed annually. The last one expired on 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 dated March 9, 1995 from petitioner company concluding their retainership agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof.
But as early as September 1992, respondent was already making inquiries about his status with the petitioner company. He first submitted a letter to the Philippine College of Occupational Medicine which replied that respondent should be considered as a regular part-time physician and must receive all benefits of an employee under the Labor Code. Petitioner company, however, did not take action. Hence, respondent made another inquiry with the DOLE and SSS which both advised that respondent should be considered an employee of the company. Thereafter, respondent inquired from the management of petitioner company whether it was agreeable to recognizing him as a regular employee. The management refused to do so.
Respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee of petitioner company and prayed for the payment of all benefits of a regular employee, including 13th Month Pay, Cost of Living Allowance, Holiday Pay, Service Incentive Leave Pay, and Christmas Bonus. While the case was pending, he received the letter from the company concluding their retainership agreement, which prompted him to file an illegal dismissal case with the NLRC.
LABOR ARBITER: First case dismissed. Petitioner company lacked the power of control over respondent’s performance of his duties, and recognized as valid the Retainer Agreement between the parties. Second case likewise dismissed in view of the previous finding of Labor Arbiter that respondent is not an employee of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.
NLRC: Dismissed respondent’s appeal for lack of merit.
CA: Granted respondent’s appeal. Employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.
ISSUE:
Whether or not employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.
Whether or not employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.
RULING:
No.
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, or the so-called “control test,” considered to be the most important element.
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 exists between the parties. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC 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 [petitioner] company, in each case.”
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.
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.
Respondent is not at all further required to just sit around in the premises and wait for an emergency to occur so as to enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and advantage. In fact, complainant maintains his own private clinic attending to his private practice in the city, where he services his patients, bills them accordingly — and if it is an employee of respondent company who is attended to by him for special treatment that needs hospitalization or operation, this is subject to a special billing.
An employee is required to stay in the employer’s workplace or proximately close thereto that he cannot utilize his time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose. Such is not the prevailing situation here. 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 also notes that the Retainership Agreement granted to both parties the power to terminate their relationship upon giving a 30-day notice. Hence, petitioner company did not wield the sole power of dismissal or termination.
Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement, which is in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent.