CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v.

NLRC

Facts:

Petitioner engaged the services of doctor-spouses Dr. Ronaldo Lanzanas and Merceditha
Lanzanas as resident physicians. They report twice-a-week on 24 hour shifts and were
paid monthly retainer. A certain Dr. Trinidad overheard Dr. Lanzanas discussing with
another employee about the low admission of patients to the hospital. Dr. Lanzanas
received a Memorandum from petitioner suspending him for 30-day for allegedly
committing acts inimical to the interest of the hospital. Petitioner filed a complaint for
illegal suspension. Rank-and-file employees union of petitioner went on a strike due to
unresolved grievances over terms and conditions of employment. DOLE Secretary
issued a return-to-work Order to the striking union officers pending resolution of the
labor dispute. Petitioner sent a notice of termination to Dr. Lanzanas for failure to
report back to work despite DOLE order and for unlawfully participating in the striking
union despite his managerial position. Dr. Lanzanas amended his complaint to include
illegal dismissal. Dr. Merceditha was also dismissed.

Labor Arbiter – dismissed complaint and held that there was no employer-employee
relationship between the parties.

NLRC – reversed the Decision.

CA – finding existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties

considering that the Medical Director still has the direct supervision and control over
the respondents. Respondents were illegally dismissed.

ISSUE:
(1) WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
spouses respondents.
(2) WON respondents were illegally dismissed.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
Respondents are free to practice their profession elsewhere the rest of the week
considering that they only report twice a week. They are entitled to ½ of all admitting,
consultation fees, etc. These indicates absence of any employment relationship between
them. Dr. Merceditha was dismissed because of her marriage to Dr. Lanzanas which has
given the presumption that her sympathies are with her husband.
HELD:
(1) Yes, there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Under the control test, an employer-employee 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.
Respondents maintained specific work-schedules which consists of 24-hour shifts.
Respondents’ work are monitored through its nursing supervisors, charge nurses and
orderlies. Without approval of the Medical Director, no operations can be undertaken.
In addition, the fact that petitioner enrolled respondents in SSS and Medicare program
reflect their status as employees. Mandatory coverage under SSS Law is premised on the
existence of employer-employee relationship. As to the sharing of hospital fees, the
same is considered as another form of compensation. An employer-employee
relationship exists between 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 this case, respondents are not undergoing any specialization training.

(2) Yes, respondents were illegally dismissed.

Petitioner failed to prove that Dr. Lanzanas indeed participated in the strike. Petitioner
failed to observe the two requirements before dismissal can be effected: Notice and
hearing – which is essential. The termination notice sent and received by Dr. Lanzanas
was the first and only time that he was informed of the reason of his dismissal. He was
not afforded the opportunity to explain his side as his termination was a “termination
upon receipt” situation. Dr. Merceditha’s dismissal was without any just or authorized
cause and without observance of due process.