20. ESCASINAS VS.

SHANGRI-LA'S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT

FACTS:
Registered nurses Jeromie D. Escasinas and Evan Rigor
Singco (petitioners) were engaged in 1999 and 1996, respectively, y
Dr. Jessica Joyce R. !epito (respondent doctor) to wor" in #er clinic
at respondent S#angri$la%s &actan 'sland Resort (S#angri$la) in (eu
o) w#ic# s#e was a retained p#ysician.
'n late *++*, petitioners )iled wit# t#e ,-R( a complaint )or
regulari.ation, underpayment o) wages, non$payment o) #oliday pay,
nig#t s#i)t di))erential and 1/t# mont# pay di))erential against
respondents, claiming t#at t#ey are regular employees o) S#angri$la.
S#angri$la claimed, #owever, t#at petitioners were not its employees
ut o) respondent doctor, t#at 0rticle 112 o) t#e -aor (ode, as
amended, does not ma"e it mandatory )or a covered estalis#ment
to employ #ealt# personnel, t#at t#e services o) nurses is not
germane nor indispensale to its operations, and t#at respondent
doctor is a legitimate individual contractor w#o #as t#e power to #ire,
)ire and supervise t#e wor" o) nurses under #er.
3#e -aor 0riter (-0) declared petitioners to e regular
employees o) S#angri$la, noting t#at t#e petitioners usually per)orm
wor" w#ic# is necessary and desirale to S#angri$la%s usiness.
4pon appeal, t#e ,-R( declared t#at no employer$employee
relations#ip e5isted etween S#angri$la and petitioners. 't ruled t#at
contrary to t#e )inding o) t#e -0, even i) 0rt. *6+ o) t#e -aor (ode
states t#at i) a wor"er per)orms wor" usually necessary or desirale
in t#e usiness o) an employer, #e cannot e automatically deemed a
regular employee, and t#at t#e &emorandum o) 0greement etween
t#e respondent and t#e respondent doctor amply s#ows t#at
respondent doctor was in )act engaged y S#angri$la on retainer
asis, under w#ic# s#e could #ire #er own nurses and ot#er clinic
personnel. 3#e (ourt o) 0ppeals ((0) a))irmed t#e ,-R( decision.
7ence, t#is petition.
ISSUES:
1. 8#et#er or not 0rticle 112 o) t#e -aor (ode ma"e it
mandatory )or covered estalis#ment to employ #ealt#
personnel9 NO
2. 8#et#er or not t#ere e5ists an employer$employee
relations#ip etween S#angri$la and petitioners. NO
HELD:
3#e (ourt #olds t#at, contrary to petitioners% postulation,
0rt. 112 does not re:uire t#e engagement o) )ull$time nurses as
regular employees o) a company employing not less t#an 1+
wor"ers.
S#angri$la, w#ic# employs more t#an *++ wor"ers, is
mandated to ;)urnis#< its employees wit# t#e services o) a )ull$time
registered nurse, a part$time p#ysician and dentist, and an
emergency clinic w#ic# means t#at it s#ould provide or ma"e
availale suc# medical and allied services to its employees, not
necessarily to #ire or employ a service provider. ,ot#ing is t#ere in
t#e law w#ic# says t#at medical practitioners so engaged e actually
#ired as employees, adding t#at t#e law, as written, only re:uires t#e
employer ;to retain<, not employ, a part$time p#ysician w#o needed to
stay in t#e premises o) t#e non$#a.ardous wor"place )or two (*)
#ours.
3#e term ;)ull$time< in 0rt. 112 cannot e construed as
re)erring to t#e type o) employment o) t#e person engaged to provide
t#e services. 3#e p#rase ;services o) a )ull$time registered nurse<
s#ould t#us e ta"en to re)er to t#e "ind o) services t#at t#e nurse will
render in t#e company%s premises and to its employees, not t#e
manner o) #is engagement.
3#e e5istence o) an independent and permissile
contractor relations#ip is generally estalis#ed y considering t#e
)ollowing determinants= w#et#er t#e contractor is carrying on an
independent usiness9 t#e nature and e5tent o) t#e wor"9 t#e s"ill
re:uired9 t#e term and duration o) t#e relations#ip9 t#e rig#t to assign
t#e per)ormance o) a speci)ied piece o) wor"9 t#e control and
supervision o) t#e wor" to anot#er9 t#e employer>s power wit# respect
to t#e #iring, )iring and payment o) t#e contractor>s wor"ers9 t#e
control o) t#e premises9 t#e duty to supply t#e premises, tools,
appliances, materials and laor9 and t#e mode, manner and terms o)
payment.
?n t#e ot#er #and, e5istence o) an employer$ employee
relations#ip is estalis#ed y t#e presence o) t#e )ollowing
determinants= (1) t#e selection and engagement o) t#e wor"ers9 (*)
power o) dismissal9 (/) t#e payment o) wages y w#atever means9
and (@) t#e power to control t#e wor"er>s conduct, wit# t#e latter
assuming primacy in t#e overall consideration.
0gainst t#e aove$listed determinants, t#e (ourt #olds t#at
respondent doctor is a legitimate independent contractor. 3#at
S#angri$la provides t#e clinic premises and medical supplies )or use
o) its employees and guests does not necessarily prove t#at
respondent doctor lac"s sustantial capital and investment. Aesides,
t#e maintenance o) a clinic and provision o) medical services to its
employees is re:uired under 0rt. 112, w#ic# are not directly related
to S#angri$la%s principal usiness B operation o) #otels and
restaurants.
0s to payment o) wages, respondent doctor is t#e one w#o
underwrites t#e )ollowing= salaries, SSS contriutions and ot#er
ene)its o) t#e sta))9 group li)e, group personal accident insurance
and li)eCdeat# insurance )or t#e sta)) wit# minimum ene)it payale at
1* times t#e employee%s last drawn salary, as well as value added
ta5es and wit##olding ta5es, sourced )rom #er !6+,+++.++ mont#ly
retainer )ee and 2+D s#are o) t#e service c#arges )rom S#angri$la%s
guests w#o avail o) t#e clinic services. 't is unli"ely t#at respondent
doctor would report petitioners as wor"ers, pay t#eir SSS premium
as well as t#eir wages i) t#ey were not indeed #er employees.
8it# respect to t#e supervision and control o) t#e nurses
and clinic sta)), it is not disputed t#at a document, ;(linic !olicies and
Employee &anual< claimed to #ave een prepared y respondent
doctor e5ists, to w#ic# petitioners gave t#eir con)ormity and in w#ic#
t#ey ac"nowledged t#eir co$terminus employment status. 't is t#us
presumed t#at said document, and not t#e employee manual eing
)ollowed y S#angri$la%s regular wor"ers, governs #ow t#ey per)orm
t#eir respective tas"s and responsiilities.
'n )ine, as S#angri$la does not control #ow t#e wor" s#ould
e per)ormed y petitioners, it is not petitioners% employer.