Saturday, August 09, 2008 Regular employment By Dominador Almirante: Labor case digest
RESPONDENT, Dr. Dean N. Climaco, a medical doctor, was hired by petitioner Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc. by virtue of a retainer agreement.
Coca Cola refused to recognize him as a regular employee. Hence, he filed a complaint seeking recognition as a regular employee and prayed for payment of benefits as such. He relied on the ground that he was on call at anytime of the day and night.
Did his complaint prosper?
Ruling: No.
Likewise, the allegation of complainant that since he is on call at anytime of the day and night makes him a regular employee is off-tangent. Complainant does not dispute the fact that outside of the two hours that he is required to be at respondent company’s premises, he is not at all further required to just sit around and wait for an emergency to occur so as to enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and advantage. In fact, complainant maintains his own private clinic, attending to his private practice in the city, where he services his patients, bills them accordingly—and if it is an employee of respondent company who is attended to by him for special treatment that needs hospitalization or operation, this is subject to a special billing.
More often than not, an employee is required to stay in the employer’s workplace or proximately close thereto that he cannot utilize his time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose. Such is not the prevailing situation here.
In addition, the Court finds that the schedule of work and the equipment to be on call for emergency cases do not amount to such control, but are necessary incidents to the Retainership Agreement.
The Court also notes that the Retainership Agreement granted to both parties the power to terminate their relationship upon giving a 30-day notice. Hence, petitioner company did not wield the sole power of dismissal or termination (Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc., et. al. versus Dr. Dean N. Climaco, G.R. No. 146881, Feb. 5, 2007, quoting in part the decision of the labor arbiter).
