Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FACTS OF THE CASE: ART. 280. REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.—The provisions of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to
Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) is engaged in
be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
the broadcasting business and owns a network of television and radio
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
stations, whose operations revolve around the broadcast, transmission,
of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a
and relay of telecommunication signals. It sells and deals in or
specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which
otherwise utilizes the airtime it generates from its radio and television
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee
operations. It has a franchise as a broadcasting company, and was
or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature
likewise issued a license and authority to operate by the National
and the employment is for the duration of the season.
Telecommunications Commission.
Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales ("Corazon"), who was RULING:
then 37 years old, was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Oscar
"borrowed servant" doctrine considering that Dr. Estrada was an
Estrada ("Dr. Estrada") beginning on her fourth month of pregnancy or
independent contractor who was merely exercising hospital privileges.
as early as December 1975. While Corazon was on her last trimester of
This doctrine provides that once the surgeon enters the operating
pregnancy, Dr. Estrada noted an increase in her blood pressure and
room and takes charge of the proceedings, the acts or omissions of
development of leg edema5 indicating preeclampsia,6 which is a
operating room personnel, and any negligence associated with such
dangerous complication of pregnancy.
acts or omissions, are imputable to the surgeon.
Around midnight of 25 May 1976, Corazon started to experience mild
While the assisting physicians and nurses may be employed
labor pains Dr. Estrada advised her immediate admission to the Capitol
by the hospital, or engaged by the patient, they normally
Medical Center
become the temporary servants or agents of the surgeon in
Based on the Doctor's Order Sheet,11 around 3:00 a.m., Dr. Estrada charge while the operation is in progress, and liability may
ordered for 10 mg. of valium to be administered immediately by be imposed upon the surgeon for their negligent acts under
intramuscular injection. the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Dr. Joel Enriquez ("Dr. Enriquez"), an anesthesiologist at CMC, was private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their
notified at 4:15 a.m. of Corazon's admission. Subsequently, when attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants" are
asked if he needed the services of an anesthesiologist, Dr. Estrada not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital
refused. Despite Dr. Estrada's refusal, Dr. Enriquez stayed to observe asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition,
Corazon's condition. the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate
consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-
Corazon later on delivered the baby but was very weak and needs to employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of
be intubated and resuscitated. When the baby was out using forceps, wages. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists,
the cervical tissues of Corazon was already torn and so profuse vaginal the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of
bleeding occurred. Dr. Espinola, who was fetched from his residence the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating
by an ambulance, arrived at the CMC about an hour later or at 9:00 responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-
a.m. He examined the patient and ordered some resuscitative employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and
measures to be administered. Despite Dr. Espinola's efforts, Corazon their attending and visiting physicians.
died at 9:15 a.m. The cause of death was "hemorrhage, post partum."
The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the
negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code
On 14 May 1980, petitioners filed a complaint for damages15 with the
which considers a person accountable not only for his own acts but
Regional Trial Court16 of Manila against CMC, Dr. Estrada, Dr. Villaflor,
Dr. Uy, Dr. Enriquez, Dr. Lacson, Dr. Espinola, and a certain Nurse J. also for those of others based on the former's responsibility under a
Dumlao for the death of Corazon. Charged CMC with negligence in the relationship of patria potestas.
selection and supervision of defendant physicians and hospital staff.
the control test, such test essentially determines whether an
After more than 11 years of trial, the trial court rendered judgment on employment relationship exists between a physician and a
22 November 1993 finding Dr. Estrada solely liable for damages. The hospital based on the exercise of control over the physician as
trial court ruled as follows: to details. Specifically, the employer (or the hospital) must have the
right to control both the means and the details of the process by which
The victim was under his pre-natal care, apparently, his fault began the employee (or the physician) is to accomplish his task.
from his incorrect and inadequate management and lack of treatment
of the pre-eclamptic condition of his patient.
the Court finds no single evidence pointing to CMC's exercise of control
over Dr. Estrada's treatment and management of Corazon's condition.
On 6 February 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the It is undisputed that throughout Corazon's pregnancy, she was under
trial court. the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Estrada. At the time of Corazon's
admission at CMC and during her delivery, it was Dr. Estrada, assisted
by Dr. Villaflor, who attended to Corazon. There was no showing that
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
CMC had a part in diagnosing Corazon's condition. While Dr. Estrada
enjoyed staff privileges at CMC, such fact alone did not make him an
1. defendant physicians and CMC personnel were negligent in employee of CMC.42 CMC merely allowed Dr. Estrada to use its
the treatment and management of Corazon's condition. facilities43 when Corazon was about to give birth, which CMC
2. claimed that aside from Dr. Estrada, the remaining considered an emergency. Considering these circumstances, Dr.
respondents should be held equally liable for negligence. Estrada is not an employee of CMC, but an independent contractor.
3. CMC, in allowing Dr. Estrada to practice and admit patients
at CMC, should be liable for Dr. Estrada's malpractice. In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent
contractor-physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: The hospital may be liable if the physician is the "ostensible"
agent of the hospital.44This exception is also known as the
1. CMC disclaims liability by asserting that Dr. Estrada was a "doctrine of apparent authority."
mere visiting physician and that it admitted Corazon because
her physical condition then was classified an emergency
CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical staff.
obstetrics case. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority
2. alleges that Dr. Estrada is an independent contractor "for thereby leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was
whose actuations CMC would be a total stranger." an employee or agent of CMC. CMC cannot now repudiate such
3. it had no control or supervision over Dr. Estrada in the authority.
exercise of his medical profession.
CMC's defense that all it did was "to extend to [Corazon] its facilities" 1. since he is on call at anytime of the day and night makes
is untenable. The Court cannot close its eyes to the reality that him a regular employee is off-tangent.
hospitals, such as CMC, are in the business of treatment. 2. That he has been working for the company for more than 1
year and therefore he should be treated as a regular
the release forms of CMC cannot relieve CMC from liability for the employee.
negligent medical treatment of Corazon.
ISSUE:
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTLY GRANTS the petition. The Court
finds respondent Capitol Medical Center vicariously liable for the whether or not there exists an employer-employee
negligence of Dr. Oscar Estrada. The amounts of P105,000 as actual relationship between the parties
damages andP700,000 as moral damages should each earn legal whether the termination of respondent’s employment is
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the illegal.
date of the judgment of the trial court. The Court affirms the rest of
the Decision dated 6 February 1998 and Resolution dated 21 March RULING:
2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45641.
The Court, in determining the existence of an employer-employee
SO ORDERED. 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, or the so-called "control test," considered to be
G.R. No. 146881 February 5, 2007 the most important element.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly found that petitioner
COCA COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS.), INC./ERIC MONTINOLA,
Manager, Petitioners, company lacked the power of control over the performance by
vs. respondent of his duties. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the
DR. DEAN N. CLIMACO, Respondent. Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondent’s
objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent "how to
FACTS OF THE CASE: conduct his physical examination, how to immunize, or how to
diagnose and treat his patients, employees of [petitioner] company, in
each case."
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. The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner company, through the
1988, was renewed annually. The last one expired on December 31, Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure
1993. Despite the non-renewal of the Retainer Agreement, respondent that the end result was achieved, but did not control the means and
continued to perform his functions as company doctor to Coca-Cola methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks.
until he received a letter4 dated March 9, 1995 from petitioner
company concluding their retainership agreement effective 30 days
The NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and stated that it
from receipt thereof.
is precisely because the company lacks the power of control that the
contract provides that respondent shall be directly responsible to the
It is noted that as early as September 1992, petitioner was already employee concerned and their dependents for any injury, harm or
making inquiries regarding his status with petitioner company. First, he damage caused through professional negligence, incompetence or
wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Willie Sy, the Acting President and other valid causes of action.
Chairperson of the Committee on Membership, Philippine College of
Occupational Medicine. In response, Dr. Sy wrote a letter5 to the
The Labor Arbiter also correctly found that the provision in the
Personnel Officer of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Bacolod City, stating that
respondent should be considered as a regular part-time physician, Retainer Agreement that respondent was on call during emergency
having served the company continuously for four (4) years. He likewise cases did not make him a regular employee.
stated that respondent must receive all the benefits and privileges of
an employee under Article 157 (b)6 of the Labor Code.
Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between
the parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement, which is in
Petitioner company, however, did not take any action. accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute
illegal dismissal of respondent. Consequently, there is no basis for the
November 28, 1996, Labor Arbiter Jesus N. Rodriguez, Jr. found that moral and exemplary damages granted by the Court of Appeals to
petitioner company lacked the power of control over respondent’s respondent due to his alleged illegal dismissal.
performance of his duties, and recognized as valid the Retainer
Agreement between the parties. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Decision and Resolution dated November 28, 1997 and August 7,
November 28, 1997, the NLRC dismissed the appeal in both cases for
lack of merit. It declared that no employer-employee relationship 1998, respectively, of the National Labor Relations Commission are
existed between petitioner company and respondent based on the REINSTATED.
provisions of the Retainer Agreement which contract governed
respondent’s employment.