Scribd
Upload
373 views

Phil. Global Comm. vs. de Vera

Philippine Global Communications engaged Dr. Ricardo de Vera to provide medical services to its employees under a retainership contract from 1981 to 1994. In 1995-1996, the agreement was verbally renewed. In 1997, Philippine Global terminated the contract and Dr. de Vera filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that no employee-employer relationship existed as Dr. de Vera billed Philippine Global monthly for his fees, either party could terminate the agreement at will, and Philippine Global did not control the means or methods by which Dr. de Vera performed his work.

Uploaded by

Russ Tuazon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
373 views

Phil. Global Comm. vs. de Vera

Philippine Global Communications engaged Dr. Ricardo de Vera to provide medical services to its employees under a retainership contract from 1981 to 1994. In 1995-1996, the agreement was verbally renewed. In 1997, Philippine Global terminated the contract and Dr. de Vera filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that no employee-employer relationship existed as Dr. de Vera billed Philippine Global monthly for his fees, either party could terminate the agreement at will, and Philippine Global did not control the means or methods by which Dr. de Vera performed his work.

Uploaded by

Russ Tuazon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Phil. Global Comm. vs.

De Vera
G.R. No. 157214; June 7, 2005

FACTS:

Philippine Global Communications inc. is a corporation engaged in the business


of communication services and allied activities while Ricardo de Vera is a physician by
profession whom petitioner enlisted to attend to the medical needs of its employees.
The controversy arose when petitioner terminated his engagement.

In 1981, Dr. de Vera offered his services to petitioner. The parties agreed and
formalized the respondent’s proposal in a document denominated as retainership
contract which will be for a period of one year, subject to renewal and clearly stated
that respondent will cover the retainership the company previously with Dr. Eulau. The
agreement went until 1994, in the years 1995-1996, it was renewed verbally. The
turning point of the parties’ relationship was when petitioner, thru a letter bearing the
subject TERMINATION – RETAINERSHIP CONTRACT, informed Dr. de Vera of its
decision to discontinue the latter’s retainer contract because the management has
decided that it would be more practical to provide medical services to its employees
through accredited hospitals near the company premises.

On January 1997, de Vera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC,
alleging that he had been actually employed by the company as its company physician
since 1991. The commission rendered decision in favor of Philcom and dismissed the
complaint saying that de Vera was an independent contractor. On appeal to NLRC, it
reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter stating that de Vera is a regular employee
and directed the company to reinstate him. Philcom appealed to the CA where it
rendered decision deleting the award but reinstating de Vera. Philcom filed this petition
involving the difference of a job contracting agreements from employee-employer
relationship.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there exists an employee-employer relationship between the
parties.

RULING:
SC ruled that there was no such relationship existing between Dr. de Vera and
Phil. Com.

The elements of an employer-employee relationship are wanting in this case. The


record are replete with evidence showing that respondent had to bill petitioner for his
monthly professional fees. It simply runs against the grain of common experience to
imagine that an ordinary employee has yet to bill his employer to receive his salary.
The power to terminate the parties’ relationship was mutually vested on both.
Either may terminate the arrangement at will, with or without cause.

Remarkably absent is the element of control whereby the employer has reserved
the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work done but also as
to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.

Petitioner had no control over the means and methods by which respondent
went about performing his work at the company premises. In fine, the parties
themselves practically agreed on every terms and conditions of the engagement, which
thereby negates the element of control in their relationship.

You might also like