7/29/2019 Labor Case Digest- Richard Baker

1/3

LABOR CASE DIGEST

BY: RICHARD BAKER

Calamba Medical Center vs. NLRC (Strike, Managerial Employees, Control Test, illegal Dismissal)

FACTS: Ronaldo and Merceditha are doctors employed by Calamba Medical Center, Inc. They are given a retainers fee by

the hospital as well as shares from fees obtained from patients.One time; Ronaldo was overheard by Dr. Trinidad talking to

another doctor about how low the admission rate to the hospital is. That conversation was reported to Dr. Desipeda who

was then Medical Director of the hospital.Eventually Ronaldo was suspended. Ronaldo filed a case for Illegal Suspensionin March 1998. In the same month, the rank and file employees organized a strike against the hospital for unfair labor

practices. Desipeda eventually fired Ronaldo for his alleged participation in the strike, which is not allowed under the Labor

Code for he is a managerial employee. Desipeda also fired Merceditha on the ground that she is the wife of Ronaldo who

naturally sympathizes with him.The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was no Illegal Suspension for there was no employer-

employee relationship because the hospital has no control over Ronaldo as he is a doctor who even gets shares from the

hospitals earnings.The National Labor Relations Commission as well as the Court of Appeals reversed the LA.

ISSUE: W/N there is an employer-employee relationship?

HELD: Yes. Under the control test, an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital

controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task. There is control in

this case because of the fact that Desipeda schedules the hours of work for Ronaldo and his wife.The doctors are also

registered by the hospital under the SSS which is premised on an employer-employee relationship.There is Illegal Dismissal

committed against Rolando for there was no notice and hearing held. It was never shown that Rolando joined the strike.

But even if he did, he has the right to do so for he is not a part of the managerial or supervisory employees. As a doctor,

their decisions are still subject to revocation or revision by Desipeda.There is Illegal Dismissal committed against

Merceditha for the ground therefor was not mentioned in Article 282 of the Labor Code.

REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP. v. CASTANEDA

Facts: Erlinda Castaneda had instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of

overtime service incentive leave pay and non-payment of 13th month pay against Remington (a trading business) before

the NLRC.Castaneda alleged:

She started working in August 1983 as company cook for Remington, worked for six days a week. 6 am

as she markets until 5:30 pm after employees leave.

She continuously worked with Remington until unceremoniously prevented from reporting for work

when it transferred to a new site. When she reported for work at the new site but was informed that

Remington no longer needed her services.

She was illegally dismissed because she was not given the notices required by law. So she filed her

complaint for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights etc.

Remington:

Denied that it dismissed Erlinda illegally, saying she was a domestic helper, not a regular employee

Her job did not have anything to do with the business of trading in construction or hardware materials.

She did not work eight hours. After cooking lunch and snack, her time was hers.

Remington did not exercise any degree of control over her work.

She did not even need to punch any time card.

7/29/2019 Labor Case Digest- Richard Baker

2/3

Labor Arbiter: dismissed Castaneda complaint. She was a domestic helper.

NLRC: Reversed Labor Arbiter.

Not a domestic helper. No allegation that she worked in the house of director or Remington, Mr. Tan.

Facts-wise, she worked as a cook in the office so that it benefited not the family of Mr. Tan but his

employees.There is a certification issued by the corporate secretary certifying that she was a bonafide

employee.Her work schedule and the fact of being paid a monthly salary indicate that she is a company

employee. The food she prepares are part of the benefit the business provides for the employees.CA

affirmed NLRC.

ISSUE: was Castaneda a regular employee in Remington? YES.

HELD: Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. NLRC: a househelper in the staff houses of an industrial company was a regular employee of

the said firm. The criterion is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of said

employer.That she works within company premises and that she does not cater exclusively to the personal comfort of Mr.

Tan and his family reflects the existence of Remington's right of control over her functions, which is the primary indicator

of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.Wrong to say that if the work is not directly related to the

employer's business, then the person performing such work could not be considered an employee. The existence of the

employer-employee relationship is defined by law according to the facts of each case, regardless of the nature of the

activities involved.Doctrine, also laid out in Apex:The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within the

premises of the business , as in staffhouses for its guest or even for its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion

that such househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee of the employer.

NOTE: It was held she was illegally dismissed. She enjoys security of tenure. She may not be dismissed in the absence of

just or authorized cause.

LOOT vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

FACTS:

A lawyer, retired at age sixty-five (65) as Special Assistant in the Development Bank of the Philippines. He served the

government as clerk in the bureau of health and worked as a stenographer at DBP. When he was branch manager of the

DBP in Puerto Princesa, he began complaining of headache and chest pain. He consulted physicians at the DBP but he was

referred to the St. Luke's Hospital where he was disposed as suffering from hypertensive cardiovascular disease. One year

after his retirement, petitioner filed with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) a claim for compensation

benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626,1

as amended. Attached to his claim was a certification from his attending

physician at the United Doctors Medical Center, Dr. Antonio F. Guytingco, stating that petitioner was suffering from

"arteriosclerotic hypertensive cardiovascular disease" and "left ventricular hypertrophy by voltage criteria" and that his

degree of disability was "permanent total."he GSIS considered him to have only partial permanent disability Petitioner

requested a reconsideration of the GSIS' evaluation which was, however, denied on the ground that, based on the

Implementing Rules of Employees Compensation Program, the degree of his disability at the time of his separation from

government service fell under the category of PPD only, and that any sickness, injury or death which might arise after

retirement could not be considered work-related within the contemplation of law. Petitioner persistently wrote letters

claiming additional benefits, attaching thereto medical certificates issued by his attending physician. The GSIS re-evaluatedhis case but found no reason to alter or even amend its denial of petitioner's claims. Petitioner elevated his case to the

Employees Compensation Commission (ECC). the denial of petitioner's claims was affirmed.

ISSUE: Is the degree of Petitioner's disease, Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease with Left Ventricle Hypertrophy, a permanent

total disability as interpreted by law? Is Petitioner entitled to the full benefit of 50 months providedby law for PPD?"

HELD: Although it appears that the GSIS granted the petitioner's claim under P.D. No. 626 as shown by the fact that its

counsel contends herein that the GSIS should be refunded by the DBP with whatever amount of the claim it had paid to

petitioner because liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law is chargeable to the employer, Permanent total

disability or "total and permanent disability" under Sec. 15 of the Workmen's Compensation Law means "disablement of an

employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of a similar nature that (s)he was trained for, or accustomed to

perform, or any kind of work which a person of her (his) mentality and attainment could do. As to who shall be liable for

the payment of the petitioner's medical benefits, Sec. 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act explicitly provides that the

employer shall be liable to pay compensation.

7/29/2019 Labor Case Digest- Richard Baker

3/3