GROUP 1

Names: 1. de Leon, Carlos Eric I.

2. Denna, Denisse Mae M.
3. Milla, Jacer Joe P.
4. Paras, Divine Mae V.

TOPIC: Four-Fold Test

Calamba Medical Center, Inc., v. National Labor Relations Commission, Ronaldo

Lanzanas and Merceditha Lanzanas
G.R. No. 176484, 25 August 2008
Second Division
Carpio Morales, J.:

Facts:

Calamba Medical Center (petitioner), a privately-owned hospital, engaged the services of

medical doctors-spouses Ronaldo Lanzanas (Dr. Lanzanas) and Merceditha Lanzanas
(Dr. Merceditha) as part of its team of resident physicians. Reporting at the hospital
twice-a-week on twenty-four-hour shifts, the latter were paid a monthly "retainer" of
P4,800.00 each. It appears that resident physicians were also given a percentage share out
of fees charged for out-patient treatments, operating room assistance and discharge
billings, in addition to their fixed monthly retainer.

The work schedules of the members of the team of resident physicians were fixed by
petitioner's medical director Dr. Raul Desipeda (Dr. Desipeda). And they were issued
identification cards by petitioner and were enrolled in the Social Security System (SSS).
Income taxes were withheld from them.

Events transpired leading to grievances and problems. These were not resolved amicably.
Calamba later sent Dr. Lanzanas a notice of termination which he received on April 25,
1998, indicating as grounds therefor his failure to report back to work despite the DOLE
order and his supposed role in the striking union. This prompted Lanzanas to charge the
hospital with illegal termination. Calamba’s defense is the absence of an employer-
employee relationship between them.

Issue:

Does the employer-employee relationship exist between Calamba and Dr. Lanzanas?

Ruling:

Yes.

From the control test perspective, the relationship yields positive based on these facts:
specific work-schedules, as determined by petitioner through its medical director, which
consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictly
to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions.

Further, in the emergency room, the operating room, or any department or ward for that
matter, respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors, charge nurses and
orderlies. Without the approval or consent of the petitioner or its medical director, no
operations can be undertaken in those areas.

Finally, under Section 15, Rule X of Book III of the Implementing Rules of the Labor
Code, an employer-employee relationship exists between the resident physicians and the
training hospitals, unless there is a training agreement between them, and the training
program is duly accredited or approved by the appropriate government agency. In
respondents' case, they were not undergoing any specialization training. They were
considered non-training general practitioners, assigned at the emergency rooms and ward
sections.
TOPIC: Four-Fold Test

Andres Villavilla and Ester Gadiente Villavilla v. Court of Appeals, Social Security
Commission, Reynaldo Mercado, and Marcelo Cosuco, Social Security System
G.R. No. 79664, 11 August 1992
First Division
Bellosillo, J.:

Facts:

Arturo Villavilla was employed as "tripulante" (crew member) of the fishing boat "F/B
Saint Theresa" from 1974 until September 11, 1977, when the boat sank off Isla
Binatikan, Taytay, Palawan and had been missing since then. In 1979, petitioners
Villavilla, parents of Arturo, filed a petition with the Social Security Commission against
Reynaldo Mercado and Marcelino Cosuco, owners of the fishing boat, for death
compensation benefits of Arturo whom respondents failed to register as their employee.
In 1981, the Social Security System (SSS) filed a petition in intervention alleging that
records from the SSS Production Department showed that "F/B Saint Theresa", owned by
Marcelino Cosuco and operated by Reynaldo Mercado, was a registered member-
employer, and that in the event petitioners succeeded in proving the employment of
Arturo with private respondents, the latter should be held liable in damages equivalent to
the benefits due the petitioners. Respondent Cosuco then filed his answer denying all
allegations in the petition and claiming that he already sold the fishing boat to respondent
Mercado and from then on, he did not participate anymore in the operation and
management of the boat nor in the hiring of its crewmembers.

Petitioners argue that it was private respondent Reynaldo Mercado who recruited Arturo
Villavilla sometime in 1974 to be a crew member of the fishing boat "F/B Saint Theresa"
with a daily wage of P20.00. Petitioners thus contend that since Arturo was recruited by
Mercado himself sometime in 1974 as one of his fishermen-crew members and that the
crew members were uniformly paid by Mercado, there can be no other conclusion but
that Arturo was an employee of Mercado at the time his fishing boat sank. However, the
records disclose that the relationship between Mercado and the crew members of the ship
shows the existence of a joint venture, as the crew members did not receive fixed
compensation for they only share in their catch. The boat owners did not hire them but
simply joined the fishing expedition upon invitation of the ship master, even without the
knowledge of the boat owner. In short, there was neither right of control nor actual
exercise of such right on the part of the boat owner over his crew members.

Issue:

Whether there was an employer – employee relationship between Arturo Villavilla and
Reynaldo Mercado.

Ruling:

No.
The bases for the existence of employer-employee relationships are not present in the
case at bar. As mentioned earlier, private respondent Reynaldo Mercado had no
connection with the selection and engagement of Arturo Villavilla; exercised no power of
dismissal over Arturo Villavilla; neither had he any power of control or had reserved the
right to control Arturo Villavilla as to the result of the work to be done as well as the
means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished, and there was no such
uniform salary involved. The boat-owners obviously are not responsible for the wage,
salary, or fee of the pilot and crew-members. Their sole participation in the venture is the
furnishing or delivery of the equipment used for fishing, after which, they merely wait for
the boat's return and receive their share in the catch, if there is any. In the present case,
neither the pilots nor the crew-members receive compensation from boat-owners. They
only share in their own catch produced by their own efforts. There is no showing that
outside of their one third share, the boat-owners have anything to do with the distribution
of the rest of the catch among the pilots and the crew members. The latter perform no
service for the boat-owners, but mainly for their own benefit. It is clear that there was no
employer-employee relationship between petitioner's son Arturo and private respondent
Mercado, much less private respondent Cosuco. As such, Arturo could not be made
subject to compulsory coverage under the Social Security Act; hence, private respondents
cannot be said to have violated said law when they did not register him with the Social
Security System.
TOPIC: Non-Suspension of Employer-Employee Relationship

Industrial Commercial Agricultural Workers Organization (Icawo) v.

Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), Azucarera De Pilar
G.R. No. L-21465, 31 March 1966
En Banc
Reyes, J.B.L., J.:

Facts:

On 9 February 1956, the petitioner, ICAWO, declared a strike against the respondent
Central Azucarera de Pilar. Among the strikers were 101 seasonal workers, some of
whom have worked as such for the company since pre-war years.

On the opening of the milling season for the year 1956-1957, the respondent company
refused to re-admit these 101 seasonal workers of the ICAWO on the ground that it was
precluded by the closed-shop clause in its collective bargaining agreement with the
CAPAWA entered into in 1955.

On 8 May 1958, the ICAWO filed an unfair labor practice charge against the company.
The Court of Industrial Relations, in its decision dated 27 November 1961, ordered the
reinstatement, with back wages, of these laborers; but on a motion for reconsideration,
the said court, en banc, reversed the said decision in its resolution dated 13 August 1962.

The status of the seasonal workers was questioned with petitioner maintaining that they
are regular workers and old employees, while respondents contended that their
employment ceased at the end of each milling season.

Issue:

Whether the CIR’s reversal of its decision in a resolution is merited.

Ruling:

No.

Private respondent took notice of the case of Hind Sugar Company vs CIR L-13364, 26
July 1960, but the Court did not consider it authoritative enough because it did not rule
on the temporary character of seasonal workers, in this case, the plight of the strikers.

The Court took cognizance of Manila Hotel Company vs CIR L-18873 30 September
1963 where it declared the workers are not, strictly speaking, separated from the service
but are merely considered as on leave of absence without pay until they are recalled for
employment, in essence the employee relationship was not severed but only suspended.
The suspension of work has always been foreseeable that there would be no
compensation and that during the temporary layoff laborers were free to seek other
employment but always anticipating re-employment once the milling season starts.

The Court reached a conclusion that petitioners are not new workers within the scope of
the closed shop clause in its collective bargaining agreement between the sugar central
and the union.

The resolution under review was set aside and the court of origin directed to reinstate the
seasonal workers to their former positions.