JEROMIE D. ESCASINAS and EVAN RIGOR SINGCO VS SHANGRI-LA’S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT and DR. JESSICA J.R. PEPITO

JEROMIE D. ESCASINAS and EVAN RIGOR SINGCO

VS

SHANGRI-LA’S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT and DR. JESSICA J.R. PEPITO
580 SCRA 604 (2009)

The requirements for the existence of an employer-employee relationship are different from the requisites for the existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship.

Jeromie D. Escasinas and Evan Rigor Singco were registered nurses, engaged by respondent Dr. Jessica Joyce R. Pepito to work in her clinic at respondent Shangri-La’s Mactan Island Resort (Shangri-La). Escasinas and Singco filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for regularization, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, night shift differential and 13th month pay against Shangrila et al., claiming that they are regular employees of Shangri-La.

Shangri-la claimed that Escasinas and Singco were not its employees but of Dr. Pepito, whom it retained via Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) pursuant to Article 157 of the Labor Code. Dr. Pepito for her part claimed that Escasinas and Singco were already working for the previous retained physicians of Shangri-la before she was retained. Escasinas and Singco, however, insist that under Article 157 of the Labor Code, Shangri-la is required to hire full-time registered nurse, hence their engagement should be deemed as regular employment. They maintain that Dr. Pepito is a labor-only contractor for she has no license or business permit and no business name registration as mandated by Sec. 19 and 20 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code.

The labor arbiter declared Escasinas and Singco to be regular employees of Shangri-la. The National Labor Relations Commission, on the other hand, granted Shangri-la’s and Dr. Pepito’s appeal and dismissed Escasinas and Singco complaint for lack of merit, finding that no employer-employee relationship exists between Shangri-la and petitioners.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Escasinas and Singco are regular employees of Shangri-la and Dr. Pepito

HELD:
The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by considering the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer’s power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor’s workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment.

On the other hand, existence of an employer- employee relationship is established by the presence of the following determinants: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to control the worker’s conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration.

Against the above-listed determinants, the Court holds that Dr. Pepito is a legitimate independent contractor. That Shangri-la provides the clinic premises and medical supplies for use of its employees and guests do not necessarily prove that respondent doctor lacks substantial capital and investment. Besides, the maintenance of a clinic and provision of medical services to its employees is required under Art. 157, which are not directly related to Shangri-la’s principal business – operation of hotels and restaurants.
As to payment of wages, Dr. Pepito is the one who underwrites the following: salaries, SSS contributions and other benefits of the staff; group life, group personal accident insurance and life/death insurance for the staff with minimum benefit payable at 12 times the employee’s last drawn salary, as well as value added taxes and withholding taxes, sourced from her P60,000.00 monthly retainer fee and 70% share of the service charges from Shangri-la’s guests who avail of the clinic services. It is unlikely that Dr. Pepito would report Escasinas and Singco as workers, pay their SSS premium as well as their wages if they were not indeed her employees.

With respect to the supervision and control of the nurses and clinic staff, it is not disputed that a document, ―Clinic Policies and Employee Manual‖ claimed to have been prepared by Dr. Pepito exists, to which Escasinas and Singco gave their conformity and in which they acknowledged their co-terminus employment status. It is thus presumed that said document, and not the employee manual being followed by Shangri-la’s regular workers, governs how they perform their respective tasks and responsibilities.

Contrary to Escasinas and Singco contention, the various office directives issued by Shangri-la’s officers do not imply that it is Shangri-la’s management and not Dr. Pepito who exercises control over them or that Shangri-la has control over how the doctor and the nurses perform their work.

In fine, as Shangri-la does not control how the work should be performed by Escasinas and Singco, it is not Escasinas and Singco’s employer.