Coca Cola Bottlers Inc. v. Climaco February 5, 2007 G.R. No.

146881 514 SCRA 164 Facts: Respondent Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by petitioner CocaCola Bottlers Phils., Inc (Coca-Cola), by virtue of a Retainer Agreement. The Retainer Agreement, which began on January 1, 1988, was renewed annually. The last one expired December 31, 1993. Despite the non-renewal of the Retainer Agreement, respondent continued to perform his functions as company doctor to Coca-Cola until he received a letter from petitioner company concluding their retainership agreement. It is noted that as early as September 1992, petitioner was already making inquiries regarding his status with petitioner company. Petitioner company, however, did not take any action. Respondent inquired from the management of petitioner company whether it was agreeable to recognize him as a regular employee. The management refused to do so. Respondent filed a Complaint before the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee of petitioner company and prayed for the payment of all benefits of a regular employee. While the complaint was pending before the Labor Arbiter, respondent received a letter from petitioner company concluding their retainership agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof. This prompted respondent to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner company. Respondent contend . The Labor Arbiter and NLRC declared that there is no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. However, the Court of Appeals declared that respondent should be classified as a regular employee having rendered 6 years of service as plant physician by virtue of several renewed retainer agreements. Issue: WON there exist an employer-employee relationship between the parties Ruling: The court, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has invariably adhered to the four-fold test: (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 employees conduct. The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee relationship exist between the parties, they correctly found that petitioner company lacked the power of control over the performance by respondent of his duties. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondents objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent how to conduct his physical examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients, employees of company, in each case. In effect, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner company, through the Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was achieved, but did not control the means and methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks. The NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and stated that it is precisely because the company lacks the power of control that the contract provides that respondent shall be directly responsible to the employee concerned and their dependents for any injury, harm or damage caused through professional negligence, incompetence or other valid causes of action. In addition, the Court finds that the schedule of work and the requirement to be on call for emergency cases do not amount to such control, but are necessary incidents to the Retainership Agreement. The Court agrees that there is nothing wrong with the employment of respondent as a retained physician of petitioner company and upholds the validity of the Retainership Agreement which clearly stated that no employe-employee relationship existed between the

parties. Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement , which is accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of respondent.