Philippine Global Communications v. Vera

GARCIA, J.:

Before us is this appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari from the 12 September 2002 Decision1 and the 13 February 2003 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65178, upholding the finding of illegal dismissal by the National Labor Relations Commission against petitioner. As culled from the records, the pertinent facts are: Petitioner Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PhilCom), is a corporation engaged in the business of communication services and allied activities, while respondent Ricardo De Vera is a physician by profession whom petitioner enlisted to attend to the medical needs of its employees. At the crux of the controversy is Dr. De Vera's status vis a vis petitioner when the latter terminated his engagement.

It appears that on 15 May 1981, De Vera, via a letter dated 15 May 1981,3 offered his services to the petitioner, therein proposing his plan of works required of a practitioner in industrial medicine, to include the following: 1. Application of preventive medicine including periodic check-up of employees; 2. Holding of clinic hours in the morning and afternoon for a total of five (5) hours daily for consultation services to employees; 3.

Management and treatment of employees that may necessitate hospitalization including emergency cases and accidents; 4. Conduct pre-employment physical check-up of prospective employees with no additional medical fee; 5. Conduct home visits whenever necessary; 6.

Attend to certain medical administrative function such as accomplishing medical forms, evaluating conditions of employees applying for sick leave of absence and subsequently issuing proper certification, and all matters referred which are medical in nature. The parties agreed and formalized respondent's proposal in a document denominated as RETAINERSHIP CONTRACT 4 which will be for a period of one year subject to renewal, it being made clear therein that respondent will cover "the retainership the Company previously had with Dr. K. Eulau" and that respondent's "retainer fee"

will be at P4,000.00 a month. Said contract was renewed yearly.5 The retainership arrangement went on from 1981 to 1994 with changes in the retainer's fee. However, for the years 1995 and 1996, renewal of the contract was only made verbally.

The turning point in the parties' relationship surfaced in December 1996 when Philcom, thru a letter6 bearing on the subject boldly written as "TERMINATION - RETAINERSHIP CONTRACT", informed De Vera of its decision to discontinue the latter's "retainer's contract with the Company effective at the close of business hours of December 31, 1996" because management has decided that it would be more practical to provide medical services to its employees through accredited hospitals near the company premises. On 22 January 1997, De Vera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), alleging that that he had been actually employed by Philcom as its company physician since 1981 and was dismissed without due process.

He averred that he was designated as a "company physician on retainer basis" for reasons allegedly known only to Philcom. He likewise professed that since he was not conversant with labor laws, he did not give much attention to the designation as anyway he worked on a full-time basis and was paid a basic monthly salary plus fringe benefits, like any other regular employees of Philcom.

On 21 December 1998, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C.

Reyes came out with a decision7 dismissing De Vera's complaint for lack of merit, on the rationale that as a "retained physician" under a valid contract mutually agreed upon by the parties, De Vera was an "independent contractor" and that he "was not dismissed but rather his contract with [PHILCOM] ended when said contract was not renewed after December 31, 1996".

On De Vera's appeal to the NLRC, the latter, in a decision8 dated 23 October 2000, reversed (the word used is "modified") that of the Labor Arbiter, on a finding that De Vera is Philcom's "regular employee" and accordingly directed the company to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges and with full backwages from the date of his dismissal until actual reinstatement. We quote the dispositive portion of the decision:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is modified in that respondent is ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges with full backwages from the date of his dismissal until his actual reinstatement computed as follows: Backwages: a) Basic Salary From Dec. 31, 1996 to Apr. 10, 2000 = 39.33 mos. P44,400.00 x 39.33 mos. P1,750,185.00 b) 13th Month Pay: 1/12 of P1,750,185.00 145,848.75 c) Travelling allowance: P1,000.00 x 39.33 mos. 39,330.00 GRAND TOTAL