INCUMPLIMIENTO A LAS OBLIGACIONES PACTADAS EN EL ANEXO SSPA

The Court, through its First Division, rendered a Decision holding that PSI is jointly and severally liable;

1. there is an employer-employee relationship between Medical City and Dr. Ampil for purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases;

2. PSI’s act of publicly displaying in the lobby of the Medical City the names and specializations of its accredited physicians, including Dr. Ampil, estopped it from denying the existence of an employer- employee relationship between them under the doctrine of ostensible agency or agency by estoppel; 3. PSI’s failure to supervise Dr. Ampil and its resident physicians and nurses and to take an active step in

order to remedy their negligence rendered it directly liable under the doctrine of corporate negligence. Arguments of PSI in the MR:

1. PSI contends that there's no employer-employee relationship between it and its consultant, Dr. Ampil. PSI stressed that the Court’s Decision in Ramos holding that "an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians for the purpose of apportioning responsibility".

2. PSI maintains that consultants, like Dr. Ampil, are "independent contractors," not employees of the hospital.

3.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there's an employee - employer relationship for solidary liability to attach. 2. Whether or not Dr. Ampil an independent contractor-physician hence liability is personal.

4. evidence of fellowship in most cases, and 5. references.

After a physician is accepted, either as a visiting or attending consultant, he is normally required to attend clinico-pathological conferences, rounds and patient audits. In addition to these, the physician’s performance as a specialist is generally evaluated by a peer review committee on the basis of mortality and morbidity statistics, and feedback from patients, nurses, interns and residents.

Hence, private hospitals hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient’s condition, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. Second, even assuming that Dr. Ampil is not an employee of Medical City, but an independent contractor, still the said hospital is liable to the Aganas based on the "doctrine of apparent authority." There are two factors to consider:

1. Whether the hospital acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; and

2. Whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.

In this case, PSI is estopped from passing the blame solely to Dr. Ampil. Its act of displaying his name and those of the other physicians in the public directory at the lobby of the hospital amounts to holding out to the public that it offers quality medical service through the listed physicians. This justifies Atty. Agana’s belief that Dr. Ampil was a member of the hospital’s staff. It must be stressed that under the doctrine of apparent authority, the question in every case is whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the particular act in question.

27. SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN INC. v. COMING G.R. No. 126297 February 11, 2008

VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Doctrine:

Payroll not conclusive proof of existence or absence of ER-EE relationship.

FACTS:

Respondent Jesus J. Coming filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, with prayer for reinstatement, back wages, damages and attorney’s fees against South East International Rattan Inc (SEIRI). He alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing Machine Operator on March 17, 1984. His work schedule is from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Initially, his compensation was on "pakiao" basis but sometime in June 1984, it was fixed at P150.00 per day which was paid weekly. In 1990, he was told not to work for two months for no reason. After two months, he reported back to wrk only to be later on terminated because the company is not doing well financially and that he would be called back to work only if they need his services again. Respondent waited for almost a year but petitioners did not call him back to work. Hence, he filed a complaint before the regional arbitration branch. To bolster his claim, respondent submitted an affidavit signed by five former co-workers stating that respondent was one of the pioneer employees who worked in SEIRI for almost twenty years.

In their defense, petitioners denied having hired respondent. They stressed that respondent was not included in the list of employees submitted to the Social Security System (SSS). There's also an affidavit of Comings's brother attesting that he worked for another employer.

LA RULING: Respondent is a regular employee of SEIRI and that the termination of his employment was illegal.

Labor Arbiter Carreon found that respondent’s work as sizing machine operator is usually necessary and desirable to the rattan furniture business of petitioners and their failure to include respondent in the employment report to SSS is not conclusive proof that respondent is not their employee.

NLRC RULING: Set aside the decision of LA ruling that, complainant failed to present a single payslip, voucher

or a copy of a company payroll showing that he rendered service during the period indicated therein. The appeal to (NLRC)-Cebu City submitted the following additional evidence:

(1) copies of SEIRI’s payrolls and individual pay records of employees; (2) affidavit15 of SEIRI’s Treasurer, Angelina Agbay; and

(3) second affidavit16 of Vicente Coming.

CA RULING: Reinstated the decision of LA. The CA gave more credence to the declarations of the five former

employees of petitioners that respondent was their co-worker in SEIRI. As to the absence of respondent’s name in the payroll and SSS employment report, the CA observed that the payrolls submitted were only from January 1, 1999 to December 29, 2000 and not the entire period of eighteen years when respondent claimed he worked for SEIRI. It further noted that the names of the five affiants, whom petitioners admitted to be their former employees, likewise do not appear in the aforesaid documents. According to the CA, it is apparent that petitioners maintained a separate payroll for certain employees or willfully retained a portion of the payroll. As to the control test, records show that:

(1) they required him to work within the company premises;

(2) they obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the same job; (3) they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the

To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit:

(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages;

(3) the power of dismissal; and

(4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called "control test."

[Evidence]

In resolving the issue of whether such relationship exists in a given case, substantial evidence – that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion – is sufficient. Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.

As to the SSS or payroll list:

The Court reiterated that in Tan v. Lagrama, the fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee relationship. Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation.

For a payroll to be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it must contain a true and complete list of the employee. In this case, the exhibits offered by petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies of payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 and 2000; they do not cover the entire 18-year period during which respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.

As to the certifications issued by Mayol and Apondar asserting that respondent worked for them and not for SEIRI:

The Court ruled that the certifications did not prove any fact that respondent was not an employee of SEIRI. The certifications only claimed that (1) respondent worked under Mayor on his own discretion and (2) under Apondar as his sideline but only after regular working hours and "off and on" basis. Even assuming the truth of the foregoing statements, these do not foreclose respondent’s regular or full-time employment with SEIRI.

As to the affidavit of former co-workers submitted by respondent:

The petitioner claimed that the affiants were employees of their suppliers Mayol and Apondar. However, they did not submit proof that the latter were indeed independent contractors; clearly, petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation.

Hence, respondent Coming was a regular employee and unlawfully dismissed.

Decision regarding BACKWAGES and reinstatement

Respondent, whose employment was terminated without valid cause by petitioners, is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, back wages shall be computed from the time of the illegal termination up to the finality of the decision. Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should likewise be awarded as an alternative in case reinstatement in not possible.

28. TENAZAS ET.AL v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORTATION G.R. No. 192998 April 2, 2014

REYES, J.: