Scribd
Upload
127 views1 page

Philippine Global Communications Inc v. de Vera

(1) Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PhilCom) hired Dr. Ricardo De Vera to attend to the medical needs of its employees under a retainership contract for one year, subject to renewal. (2) In 1996, PhilCom terminated Dr. De Vera's services through a letter as it decided to provide medical services through nearby accredited hospitals instead. (3) Dr. De Vera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal but the Labor Arbiter dismissed it as he was an independent contractor under a valid contract. The NLRC reversed but the CA modified, ordering separation pay instead of reinstatement.

Uploaded by

Dwight Anthony Yu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views1 page

Philippine Global Communications Inc v. de Vera

(1) Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PhilCom) hired Dr. Ricardo De Vera to attend to the medical needs of its employees under a retainership contract for one year, subject to renewal. (2) In 1996, PhilCom terminated Dr. De Vera's services through a letter as it decided to provide medical services through nearby accredited hospitals instead. (3) Dr. De Vera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal but the Labor Arbiter dismissed it as he was an independent contractor under a valid contract. The NLRC reversed but the CA modified, ordering separation pay instead of reinstatement.

Uploaded by

Dwight Anthony Yu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

13. Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PhilCom) v. Ricardo De Vera [GR.

157214, June 7, 2005]

FACTS: Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of communication services and allied activities,
while respondent is a physician by profession whom petitioner enlisted to attend to the medical needs of its
employees. On May 18, 1981, respondent, via letter, had offered his services to the petitioner and proposed
his plan of works required of a practitioner in industrial medicine. The parties agreed and formalized
respondent’s proposal in a Retainership Contract, which will be for a period of 1 year subject to renewal. On
December 1996, petitioner, through a letter, terminated respondent’s services because the management had
decided that it would be more practical to provide medical services to its employees through accredited
hospitals near the company premises.

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC, alleging that he was employed by the
petitioner and was dismissed without due process. He alleged that he worked on a full-time basis and was paid
basic monthly salary plus fringe benefits, like any other regular employee of petitioner. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed respondent’s complaint on the ground that he was a retained physician under a valid contract
mutually agreed upon by the parties, that he was an independent contractor and he was not dismissed but
rather their contract had ended when the said contract had not been renewed on December 31, 1996. NLRC
reversed, ordering petitioner to reinstate respondent. CA modified NLRC’s decision, instead of reinstatement,
respondent shall be paid separation pay. Petitioner filed an MR with the CA, which was dismissed, hence this
case.

ISSUE: WON there is an existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

HELD: No. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has invariably adhered to the
four-fold test, to wit: [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 elements of employer-employee relationship are not
present. Respondent was the one who set the parameters of what his duties would be in offering his services
to the petitioner; further, Philcom had no control over respondent’s schedule, as respondent as shown in a
letter sent by him, was the one who proposed his own schedule and asking to be paid for the same. There was
evidence showing that respondent had to bill petitioner for his monthly professional fees. It simply runs
against the grain of common experience to imagine that an ordinary employee has yet to bill his employer to
receive his salary. Lastly, the power to terminate the parties' relationship was mutually vested on both.
Either may terminate the arrangement at will, with or without cause.

You might also like