JEROMIE D. ESCASINAS and EVAN RIGOR SINGCO, Petitioners, vs. SHANGRI-LA'S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT and DR. JESSICA J.R. PEPITO, Respondents
G.R. No. 178827 March 4, 2009
Facts:
Registered nurses Jeromie D. Escasinas and Evan Rigor Singco were engaged in 1999 and 1996, respectively, by Dr. Jessica Joyce R. Pepito (respondent doctor) to work in her clinic at respondent Shangri-la’sMactan Island Resort in Cebu of which she was a retained physician. In late 2002, petitioners filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for regularization, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, night shift differential and 13th month pay differential against respondents, claiming that they are regular employees of Shangri-la. Shangri-la claimed, however, that petitioners were not its employees but of respondent doctor, that Article 157 of the Labor Code, as amended, does not make it mandatory for a covered establishment to employ health personnel, that the services of nurses is not germane nor indispensable to its operations, and that respondent doctor is a legitimate individual contractor who has the power to hire, fire and supervise the work of nurses under her.
Issues:
1.) Whether or not there was an employee-employer relationship between Shangri-La and the petitioners. 2.) Whether or not Dr. Pepito is an independent contractor
Ruling:
SC ruled that there no such relationship. The petitioners are under the direct supervision of Dr. Pepito, an independent contractor.
(1) The resolution of the case hinges, in the main, on the correct interpretation of Art. 157 vis a vis Art. 280 and the provisions on permissible job contracting of the Labor Code, as amended. Under the foregoing provision, Shangri-la, which employs more than 200 workers, is mandated to “furnish” its employees with the services of a full-time registered nurse, a part-time physician and dentist, and an emergency clinic which means that it should provide or make available such medical and allied services to its employees, not necessarily to hire or employ a service provider. The term “full-time” in Art. 157 cannot be construed as referring to the type of employment of the person engaged to provide the services, for Article 157 must not be read alongside Art. 280[9] in order to vest employer-employee relationship on the employer and the person so engaged. The phrase “services of a full-time registered nurse” should thus be taken to refer to the kind of services that the nurse will render in the company’s premises and to its employees, not the manner of his engagement.
(2) The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by considering the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment. Against the above-listed determinants, the Court holds that respondent doctor is a legitimate independent contractor. That Shangri-la provides the clinic premises and medical supplies for use of its employees and guests do not necessarily prove that respondent doctor lacks substantial capital and investment. Besides, the maintenance of a clinic and provision of medical services to its employees is required under Art. 157, which are not directly related to Shangri-la’s principal business – operation of hotels and restaurants.