Applying the Control Test to Physicians, Hospital Staff

Preliminarily, the present petition calls for a determination of whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the spouses-respondents.

Denying the existence of such relationship, petitioner argues that the appellate court, as well as the NLRC, overlooked its twice-a-week reporting arrangement with respondents who are free to practice their profession elsewhere the rest of the week. And it invites attention to the uncontroverted allegation that respondents, aside from their monthly retainers, were entitled to one-half of all suturing, admitting, consultation, medico-legal and operating room assistance fees. These circumstances, it stresses, are clear badges of the absence of any employment relationship between them. The Supreme Court is unimpressed.

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.

Where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof, the element of control is absent.

As priorly stated, private respondents maintained 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.

That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the undisputed fact that 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 petitioner or its medical director, no operations can be undertaken in those areas. For control test to apply, it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the right to wield the power.

With respect to respondents' sharing in some hospital fees, this scheme does not sever the employment tie between them and petitioner as this merely mirrors additional form or another form of compensation or incentive similar to what commission-based employees receive as contemplated in Article 97 (f) of the Labor Code, thus:

"Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earning, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. x x x Respondents were in fact made subject to petitioner-hospital's Code of Ethics, the provisions of which cover administrative and disciplinary measures on negligence of duties, personnel conduct and behavior, and offenses against persons, property and the hospital's interest.

More importantly, petitioner itself provided incontrovertible proof of the employment status of respondents, namely, the identification cards it issued them, the payslips and BIR W-2 (now 2316) Forms which reflect their status as employees, and the classification as "salary" of their remuneration. Moreover, it enrolled respondents in the SSS and Medicare (Philhealth) program. It bears noting at this juncture that mandatory coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship, except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-employed. It would be preposterous for an employer to report certain persons as employees and pay their SSS premiums as well as their wages if they are not its employees.

And if respondents were not petitioner's employees, how does it account for its issuance of the earlier-quoted March 7, 1998 memorandum explicitly stating that respondent is "employed" in it and of the subsequent termination letter indicating respondent Lanzanas' employment status.

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. (G.R. No. 176484; November 25, 2008)