Saturday, July 26, 2008 Power of control By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENT Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by petitioner Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. by virtue of a Retainer Agreement.
In answer to respondent’s query, petitioner refused to recognize respondent as a regular employee. Hence, respondent filed a complaint seeking recognition as a regular employee, and prayed for payment of benefits of a regular employee including labor standard benefits.
Did the complaint prosper?
Ruling: No.
The Court agrees with the finding of the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that the circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. The labor arbiter and the NLRC correctly found that petitioner company lacked the power of control over the performance by respondent of his duties.
The labor arbiter reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondent’s objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent “how to conduct his physical examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients, employees of petitioner company, in each case.”
In effect, the labor arbiter held that petitioner company, through the Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was achieved, but did not control the means and methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks.
The NLRC affirmed the findings of the labor arbiter and stated that it is precisely because the company lacks the power of control that the contract provides that respondent shall be directly responsible to the employee concerned and their dependents for any injury, harm of damage caused through professional negligence, incompetence or other valid causes of action. (Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. versus Dr. Dean N. Climaco, G.R. No. 146881, Feb. 5, 2007).
