G.R. No. 162401 JANUARY 31, 2006 Facts:
Petitioner Corazon Almirez was hired by respondent Infinite Loop Technology Corporation (Infinite Loop) to be a Refinery Senior Process Design Engineer for a specific project starting October 18, 1999 with a guaranty of 12 continuous months of service or until a mutually agreed date. However, Almirez was later on suspended. Hence, she filed an action before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Infinite Loop and its General Manager/President/co-petitioner Edwin R. Rabino on the ground of breach of contract of employment.
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled that there is an existing employer-employee relationship between Almirez and Infinite Loop since the latter exercises control over the means and methods used by Almirez in the performance of her duties.
The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no existing employer-employee relationship between the parties since Almirez was hired to render her professional service only for a specific project.
Issue:
Whether or not there is employee-employer relationship between Almirez and Infinite Loop.
Ruling:
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably applied the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Of these four, the last one, the so called "control test" is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship.
Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
From the earlier-quoted scope of Almirez’ professional services, there is no showing of a power of control over petitioner. The services to be performed by her specified what she needed to achieve but not on how she was to go about it.
Contrary to the finding of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC, the
"Scope of [Almirez’] Professional Services" does not "show that the company’s management team exercises control over the means and methods in the performance of her duties as Refinery Process Design Engineer."
Having hired Almirez’ professional services on account of her "expertise and qualifications" as Almirez herself proffers in her Position Paper, the company naturally expected to be updated regularly of her "work progress," if any, on the project for which she was specifically hired.
As for the designation of the payments to Almirez as "salaries," it is not determinative of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
"Salary" is a general term defined as "a remuneration for services given." It is the above-quoted contract of engagement of services-letter dated September 30, 1999, together with its attachments, which is the law between the parties. Even Almirez concedes rendering service "based on the contract,"
which, as reflected earlier, is bereft of a showing of power of control, the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence of an employer-employee relationship.
ARNULFO C. ACEVEDO, Petitioner, vs. ADVANSTAR COMPANY INC.
(ACI)
and/or FELIPE LOI, TONY JALAPADAN, Respondents November 11, 2005 G.R. No. 157656
Facts:
ACI was engaged in the distribution and sale of various brands of liquor and alcoholic spirits. Felipe Loi was employed as its manager and Jalapadan was one of the ACI’s hired salesmen. Under the Agreement for the Sale of Merchandise between Jalapadan and ACI, among others, the former shall be provided with a 6-wheeler truck to facilitate the sale and delivery of products to customers and outlets and was authorized to employ and discharge a driver and other assistants as he deemed necessary, who would be considered his employees, and that he alone would be liable for their compensation and actual expenses, including meals while on duty. On August 5, 1997, Jalapadan hired Arnulfo Acebedo as driver.
In the course of business, Jalapadan and Acebedo had several misunderstandings until in October 10, 1998 Acebedo signed a letter, using his thumb mark, informing Jalapadan that he is resigning effective that date.
On October 26, 1998, Acevedo filed a complaint against Jalapadan, ACI and its general manager, Felipe Loi, for illegal dismissal and for the recovery of back wages and other monetary benefits.
Issue:
Whether or not Jalapadan, and not ACI and Loi, was the employer of Acebedo.
Ruling:
No, because there has been an employer-employee relationship between respondent ACI and complainant Arnulfo Acevedo, with respondent Tony Jalapadan as agent of the respondent corporation arising from their relationship of labor-only contracting. The agreement between the respondents cannot prevail over Articles 106 and 107 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
The principal employer becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees. The labor-only contractor is considered merely as an agent of the employer, the employer having been made, by law, responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by it.
CAYAO-LASAM, petitioners vs SPOUSES RAMOLETE, respondents GR No. 159132 December 18, 2002
Facts:
On July 28, 1994, respondent Editha Ramolete, who was 3 months pregnant, was brought to Lorma Medical Center (LMC) in San Fernando, La Union due to vaginal bleeding. Upon advise of petitioner related via telephone, Editha was admitted to the LMC on the same day.
A pelvic sonogram was then conducted on Editha revealing the fetus’
weak cardiac pulsation. The following day, the pelvic sonogram showed that aside from the fetus’ weak cardiac pulsation, no fetal movement was also appreciated. Due to persistent and profuse vaginal bleeding, petitioner advised her to undergo a D&C procedure. She was discharged the following day.
On September 16, 1994, Editha was once gain brought at the LMC, as she was suffering from vomiting and severe abdominal pains. Editha was attended by Drs. Dela Cruz, Mayo and Komiya. Dr. Mayo allegedly informed Editha that there was a dead fetus in the latter’s womb, after Editha went laparectomy, she was found to have massive intra abdominal hemorrhage and ruptured uterus. Thus, she had to go hysterectomy and as a result no more chance to bear a child.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for medical malpractice.
Ruling:
No. Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or a surgeon to apply in his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally under similar conditions and in like surrounding circumstances. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must either prove that the physician or surgeon failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would have done, or that the physician or surgeon performed something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and that such failure or action caused injury to the patient.
There are four elements involved in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury, and proximate cause.
The breach of the professional duties of skill and care, or their improper performance by a physician surgeon, whereby the patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes actionable malpractice. Further, in as much as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to suspect the conclusion as to causation.
However, in this case, it was undisputedly established that Editha did not return for follow-up evaluation, in defiance of the petitioner’s advice. This is, as found out, is the proximate cause of the injury she sustained.
DR. PEDRO DENNIS CERENO, and DR. SANTOS ZAFE, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES DIOGENES S. OLAVERE and FE R.
SERRANO, Respondents G.R. No. 167366, September 26, 2012 Facts:
At 9:15 in the evening, Raymond S. Olavere, a victim of a stabbing incident was rushed to the Bicol Regional Medical Center. The emergency room resident physician, recommended that the patient undergo "emergency exploratory laparotomy." During that time, the hospital surgeons, were busy operating on gunshot victim Maluly-on with the only anaesthesiologist Dr. Tatad on duty assisting them. Just before the operation on Maluluy-on was finished, another emergency case involving Lilia Aguila, a woman who was giving birth to triplets, was brought to the operating room. Because they were heavily occupied, the doctors decided to defer the operation on Raymond. They however examined Raymond and they found that the latter’s blood pressure was normal and
"nothing in him was significant."
At 12:15 am, the operation on Raymong started. But while the operation was on-going, Raymond suffered a cardiac arrest and he was pronounced dead at 2:30 A.M with his death certificate indicating "hypovolemic shock" as the immediate cause of death.
Issue:
Whether Dr. Cereno and Dr. Zafe are guilty of gross negligence in the performance of their duties.
Ruling: