Bulgar Big Logo.jpg

Bulgar Online.

Call us : (02) 995-3732

© 2019 bulgaronline

Sison's Publishing House, Inc. 

Doktor na sinuspinde tapos itinatangging empleyado ng ospital, may ‘K’ maghabol

February 15, 2020

Dr. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta / Magtanong Kay Attorney


Dear Chief Acosta,
                     Higit sa tatlong dekadang nagtatrabaho ang aking mga magulang sa ospital na malapit sa amin. Sila ay obligadong pumasok doon ng 16 oras kada araw at sila ay may ginagawang mga report tungkol sa kanilang gawain dito. Bagama’t, may sarili silang klinika, hindi nagbabayad ng renta ang aking mga magulang at sila ay may kahati pang ibang doktor na nagpa-part-time sa ospital. Ang mismong ospital ang nagbabayad ng buwis ng aking mga magulang at maging ng kanilang kontribusyon sa SSS at PhilHealth.


Nasuspinde rin ang aking ina ng nasabing ospital nang siya ay lumiban sa trabaho nang dalawang linggo noong namatay ang aking lola. Magreretiro na sana sila ngunit ngayon ay itinatanggi na sila bilang empleyado ng ospital. Hindi na sila pinapapasok ng ospital at nagpadala sila ng liham na hindi nila iri-renew ang panggagamot dito ng aking mga magulang mula pa noong isang taon. Tama ba ito? - Lovely


Dear Lovely,
                     Para sa inyong kaalaman, ang naranasan ng inyong mga magulang ay kahalintulad ng sa kaso ng Calamba Medical Center, Inc. vs. NLRC and Dr. Ronaldo & Dra. Mercedita Lanzanas (G.R. No. 176484, 25 November 2008, Ponente: Honorable former Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales) kung saan ipinabatid ng Korte Suprema na:
“Under the control test, an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task. 
Where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof, the element of control is absent.


As priorly stated, private respondents maintained specific work-schedules, as determined by petitioner through its medical director, which consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictly to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions.
That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the undisputed fact that in the emergency room, the operating room, or any department or ward for that matter, respondents work is monitored through its nursing supervisors, charge nurses and orderlies. Without the approval or consent of petitioner or its medical director, no operations can be undertaken in those areas. For control test to apply, it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the right to wield the power.
xxx    v xxxv     xxx


Respondents were in fact made subject to petitioner-hospitals Code of Ethics, the provisions of which cover administrative and disciplinary measures on negligence of duties, personnel conduct and behavior, and offenses against persons, property and the hospitals interest.


More importantly, petitioner itself provided incontrovertible proof of the employment status of respondents, namely, the identification cards it issued them, the payslips and BIR W-2 (now 2316) Forms which reflect their status as employees, and the classification as salary of their remuneration.


Moreover, it enrolled respondents in the SSS and Medicare (Philhealth) program. It bears noting at this juncture that mandatory coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship, except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-employed. It would be preposterous for an employer to report certain persons as employees and pay their SSS premiums as well as their wages if they are not its employees.


And if respondents were not petitioners employees, how does it account for its issuance of the earlier-quoted March 7, 1998 memorandum explicitly stating that respondent is employed in it and of the subsequent termination letter indicating respondent Lanzanas employment status.” (Binigyang-diin.) 


Maliwanag na ang inyong mga magulang ay maaaring may habol laban sa kanilang pinagtrabahuhang ospital. Ang ospital na mismo ang umaaming sila ang employer ng inyong mga magulang dahil sila mismo ang dumidisiplina at nagpapakita ng kontrol sa inyong mga magulang, base sa mga dokumento, kasama na ang pagbabayad ng kontribusyon para sa SSS at PhilHealth ng mga ito. Samakatwid, maaaring sila ang habulin ng inyong mga magulang tungkol sa kanilang pagkakatanggal sa trabaho kasama na ng mga danyos kaugnay nito.


Nawa ay nasagot namin ang inyong mga katanungan. Nais naming ipaalala sa inyo na ang opinyong ito ay nakabase sa inyong mga naisalaysay sa inyong liham at sa pagkakaintindi namin dito. Maaaring maiba ang opinyon kung mayroong karagdagang impormasyong ibibigay. Mas mainam kung personal kayong sasangguni sa isang abogado.


Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed on this website or any comments found on any articles herein, are those of the authors or columnists alike, and do not necessarily reflect nor represent the views and opinions of the owner, the company, the management and the website.


Please reload

.                                                                                      .                                                                                      .

  • hamburger icon blgr