Calamba Medical Center vs.

NLRC, 2008

Facts:

 Calamba Medical Center (CMC) engaged the services of doctor-spouses Dr. Ronaldo & Dr.
Merceditha Lanzanas. They were paid a monthly retainer, as well as were required to work
twice a week on 24-hour shifts. They also received a share of fees charged to patients.
 However, there was an incident where a fellow resident doctor overheard Dr. Ronaldo talking to
another employee about the hospitals’ low census or number of patients.
 This prompted Dr. Desipeda (A fellow resident doctor who fixes their shifts) to suspend Dr.
Ronaldo and also not approving any shifts for his wife Dr. Merceditha.
 This prompted Dr. Ronaldo to file to the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal suspension, and for
his wife a complaint for illegal dismissal.
 Thereafter a strike occurred which eventually led to Dr. Desipeda to send a memorandum
dictating that Dr. Ronaldo was terminated because he joined in the strike, even though he was
of managerial position, an act prohibited by the Labor Code.
 This prompted Ronaldo to add illegal dismissal into his complaint.

Issue:

 Is there an existing Employer-Employee relationship between petitioner and respondent?

Ruling:

 The court stated yes, there was.

 Petitioners would argue that because of the fact that the spouses only worked for two days in a
week, they could find work elsewhere and were not bound so much by the hospital. The court
stated that there is still control because their schedules would have needed to be approved
beforehand by the hospital.
 The court also stated that CMC exercised control over respondents because approval of hospital
directors had to be obtained before using any of the necessary facilities in the hospital. This is an
exercise of CMC’s power of control.
 The court also deemed that, contrary to petitioner’s assumptions, the fact that respondents
shared in the fees of the hospital did not sever the employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondent. It is simply an added form of compensation.
 The court also considered the fact that the respondents were given ID cards and paid through
payslips as facts that reflect respondent’s status as employees. Also included in this is the fact
that petitioner enrolled respondents in the SSS and PhilHealth.
 Finally, while petitioners would assert that their termination was due to Dr. Ronaldo joining in
the strike, no actual proof was given that would confirm this fact. Hence this argument did not
hold.