13.) COCA COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS) v. DR. DEAN CLIMACO
GR No. 146881, February 5, 2007
Author: Aly
DOCTRINE:
• In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
the Court adhered to 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, or the
so-called control test, considered to be the most important element.
FACTS:
• Respondent Dr. Dean N. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired
by petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. by virtue of a Retainer
Agreement that stated:
• Agreement shall only be for a period of 1year beginning
January 1 up to December 31, 1988, but either party may
terminate the contract by giving 30-day written notice
• Compensation is fixed at P3,800 per month
• Doctor agrees to perform the duties and obligations
enumerated in the COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL PLAN
• DOCTOR shall be directly responsible to the employee
concerned and their dependents for any injury inflicted during
the course of his examination, treatment or consultation
• DOCTOR shall observe clinic hours at the Company
premises from Monday to Saturday and shall stay at least two
(2) hours a day in the COMPANY clinic. He shall also be on
call at all times during the other workshifts to attend to
emergency cases.
• No employee-employer relationship shall exist between the
COMPANY and the DOCTOR while this contract is in effect
• Retainer Agreement was renewed annually for 6 years, the last one
expired on December 31, 1993.
• On September 1992, Dr. Climaco made inquiries to Dr. Willie Sy,
DOLE Director Dennis Ancheta, and SSS regarding his status in the
company. Their opinion is that Dr. Climaco is a regular employee.
• Dr. Climaco inquired from the management of petitioner
company whether it was agreeable to recognizing him as a
regular employee but they refused.
• Dr. Climaco filed a complaint (#1) in NLRC Bacolod, seeking
recognition as a regular employee and prayed for the payment of all
benefits of a regular employee.
• While this was pending, Dr. Climaco received a letter from
Coca-Cola concluding their retainership agreement effective
thirty (30) days from receipt.
• Because of the termination, Dr. Climaco filed complaint (#2)
for illegal dismissal
• The proceedings went as follows:
• Labor Arbiter Jesus Rodriguez, Jr. dismissed Complaint #1
because Coca-Cola lacked the power of control over Dr.
Climaco’s performance of his duties and held that Dr. Dean
Climaco is not an employee of Coca-Cola
• Because of Complaint #1’s dismissal, Labor Arbiter Benjamin
Pelaez also dismissed the case for illegal dismissal.
• Dr. Climaco appealed to NLRC 4th Division, Cebu but it
dismissed the appeal in both cases for lack of merit. It
declared that no employer-employee relationship existed
between Dr. Climaco and Coca-Cola based on the provisions
of the Retainer Agreement.
• Dr. Climaco filed a Petition for Review with the Court of
Appeals which reversed the NLRC and ruled that an employer-
employee relationship existed after applying the four-fold test
and Dr. Climaco should be classified as a regular employee
having rendered 6 years of service as plant physician.
ISSUE:
1. WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between the
Coca Cola and Dr. Climaco
HELD: NO
RATIO:
• 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, or the so-called control test, considered to be the
most important element.
• The circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee
relationship exists between the parties. Coca-Cola lacked the power
of control over the performance by Dr. Climaco of his duties. 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 provision in the Retainer Agreement that respondent was on call
during emergency cases did not make him a regular employee.
Outside of the 2 hours that he is required to be at Coca-Cola, he is not
at all further required to just sit around in the premises and wait for an
emergency to occur so as to enable him from using such hours for his
own benefit and advantage. More often than not, an employee is
required to stay in the employer’s workplace or proximately close
thereto that he cannot utilize his time effectively and gainfully for his
own purpose.
• The Retainership Agreement granted to both parties the power to
terminate their relationship upon giving a 30-day notice. Hence, Coca-
Cola did not wield the sole power of dismissal or termination.