Corporate Law Case Digest:Professional Services, Inc V. CA (2010)

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

Corporate Law Case Digest:Professional

Services, Inc V. CA (2010)


G.R. No. 126297

February 2, 2010

Lessons Applicable: Liability for Torts (Corporate Law)


FACTS:

Enrique Agana told his wife Natividad Agana to go look for their neighbor, Dr. Ampil, a surgeon staff
member of Medical City, a prominent and known hospital

Natividad suffered from injury due to 2 gauges left inside her body so they sued Professional Inc.
(PSI)

Despite, the report of 2 missing gauzes after the operation PSI did NOT initiate an investigation

ISSUE: W/N PSI should be liable for tort.

HELD: YES. 15M + 12% int. until full satisfaction.

While PSI had no power to control the means/method by which Dr. Ampil conducted the surgery on
Natividad, they had the power to review or cause the review

PSI had the duty to tread on as captain of the ship for the purpose of ensuing the safety of the patients
availing themselves of its services and facilities

PSI defined its standards of corporate conduct:


1. Even after her operation to ensure her safety as a patient
2. NOT limited to record the 2 missing gauzes
3. Extended to determining Dr. Ampils role in it, bringing the matter to his attention and
correcting his negligence

Admission bars itself from arguing that its corp. resp. is NOT yet in existence at the time Natividad
underwent treatment

Dr. Ampil - medial negligence

PSI - Corporate Negligence

NOTE:

Liability unique to this case because of implied agency and admitted corporate duty

26 years already and Dr. Ampil's status could no longer be ascertained

[ G.R. No. 186114, October 07, 2015 ]


CHEVRON (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. VITALIANO C GALIT, SJS AND SONS CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION AND MR. REYNALDO SALOMON, respondents.
FACTS:
The complainant Galit filed an illegal dismissal suit against Chevron and SJS Construction Corp. for
illegal dismissal and for payment of other labor standard benefits.
He alleged that he is a regular and permanent employee of Chevron, having been assigned at the
company's Pandacan depot; he is an "all-around employee" whose job consists of cleaning the
premises of the depot, changing malfunctioning oil gaskets, transferring oil from containers and other
tasks that management would assign to him; in the performance of his duties, he was directly under
the control and supervision of Chevron supervisors.
Subsequently, he was verbally informed that his employment is terminated but was promised that he
will be reinstated soon; for several months, he followed up his reinstatement, bit to no avail.
SJS claimed that Galit was hired by SJS as a project employee and was assigned to Chevron, as a
janitor, based on a contract between the two companies; that the manpower contract between SJS
and Chevron eventually ended which resulted in the severance of Galit's employment; SJS finally
closed its business operations; that Galit was paid separation pay.
Chevron argued that it availed of the manpower services of SJS for the maintenance of its oil depot in
its Pandacan site; Galit, who was employed by SJS, was assigned to the depot as a janitor; his wages
and all employment benefits were paid by SJS; he was subject to the supervision, discipline and
control of SJS; that Galit is not its employee but that of SJS.
The LA ruled to dismiss the complaint of Galit, holding that SJS is a legitimate contractor and that it
was Galit's employer and that the termination of his services was lawful on account that the project for
which he was employed has already been accomplished; that the LA doesnt have jurisdiction over
the complaint against Chevron as there existed no employer employee relationship between the
company and the complainant.
Upon appeal with the NLRC, the commission affirmed the LA decision with modification. It held that
Galit is a regular employee of SJS, and not just a mere project employee of the company whose
action dismissing Galit was with lawful due to its closure.
The CA, upon appeal of Chevron, ruled to affirm the NLRC decision, hence the recourse of the latter
with the SC.
ISSUE: WON there exists an employer employee relationship between Galit and SJS
RULING:
(1.) Galit is a regular employee of SJS. Upon cursory reading of the employment contract between
SJS and Galit, it is readily seen that SJS has the power of dismissal and control. Galit admitted in his
complaint that it was SJS which detailed him in the Pandacan oil depot. Galit also did not present any
evidence to prove that it was Chevron which pays his wages and that SJS is a mere conduit of the
latter. He was dismissed therefrom because Chevron no longer renewed its contract with SJS and
that the latter subsequently ceased to operate.
(2.) The work performed by Galit, which is the "scooping of slop of oil water separator," has no direct
relation to Chevrons business, which is the importation, refining and manufacture of petroleum
products. The job performed by Galit, which essentially consists of janitorial services, may be
incidental or desirable to petitioner's main activity but it is not necessary and directly related to it.

[ G.R. No. 208451, February 3, 2016 ]


MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., petitioner, vs. EZARD D. LLUZ, et al.,
respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. entered into a Contract of Services with respondent
Ward Trading and Services. The Contract of Services provided that Ward Trading, as an independent
contractor, will render interment and exhumation services and other related work to Manila Memorial
in order to supplement operations at Manila Memorial Park, Paraaque City.
Among those assigned by Ward Trading to perform services at the Manila Memorial Park were the
respondents.
Respondents filed a complaint for regularization and Collective Bargaining Agreement benefits
against Manila Memorial. They alleged that they asked Manila Memorial to consider them as regular
workers within the appropriate bargaining unit established in the collective bargaining agreement by
Manila Memorial and its union, the Manila Memorial Park Free Workers Union (MMP Union). But
Manila Memorial refused the request since respondents were employed by Ward Trading, an
independent labor contractor. Thereafter, respondents joined the MMP Union. Subsequently,
respondents were dismissed by Manila Memorial. Thus, respondents amended the complaint to
include the prayer for their reinstatement and payment of back wages.
Meanwhile, Manila Memorial sought the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction since there
was no employer-employee relationship. Manila Memorial argued that respondents were employees
of Ward Trading.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for failing to prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.
Respondents appealed to the NLRC but it reversed the Labor Arbiters findings. It ruled that Ward
Trading was a labor-only contractor and an agent of Manila Memorial.
Thereafter, Manila Memorial filed an appeal with the CA. The CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC. It
found the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Manila Memorial and
respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between Manila Memorial and
respondents for the latter to be entitled to their claim for wages and other benefits.
RULING: YES.
Labor-only contracting exists when the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places
workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal and any of the following elements are present:
1) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates
to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed
by such contractor or subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the
main business of the principal; or
2) The contractor does not exercise the right to control the performance of the work of the
contractual employee.
A closer look at the Contract of Service reveals that Ward Trading does not have substantial capital or
investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, work premises and other materials since it is
Manila Memorial which owns the equipment used in the performance of work needed for interment
and exhumation services.
Further, the records show that Manila Memorial and Enrique B. Lagdameo admitted that respondents
performed various interment services at its Sucat, Paraaque branch which were directly related to
Manila Memorials business of developing, selling and maintaining memorial parks and interment

functions. Manila Memorial even retained the right to control the performance of the work of the
employees concerned.
The NLRC also found that Ward Tradings business documents fell short of sound business practices.
For failing to register as a contractor, a presumption arises that one is engaged in labor-only
contracting unless the contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has substantial capital,
investment, tools and the like.

Diamond Farms vs Southern Federation

[ G.R. No. 187691, January 13, 2016]


OLYMPIA HOUSING, INC. vs. ALLAN LAPASTORA AND IRENE UBALUBAO
FACTS:
Respondents Lapostora and Ubalubao alleged that they were employees of petitioner as they
were directly hired by the latter and received salaries directly from its operations clerk, control over
them were exercised in the form of time cards and disciplinary reports. Petitioner contended that the
respondents were not their employees, but of Fast Manpower, to which it had a contract of services
and who deployed respondents. Ubalubao later on withdrew her complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is an employer employee relationship between Petitioner and
Respondents
RULING:
Lapastora was a regular employee of OHI. His uninterrupted employment from March 3, 1995
until he was placed on floating status on February 2000 manifests the continuing need and desirability
of his services, which characterize regular employment
By the nature of its business of managing condominium units, it is imperative that OHI
maintains a pool of housekeeping staff. It is no wonder why Lapastora, among several others, was
continuously employed by OHI precisely because of the indispensability of their services to its
business. The fact alone that Lapastora was allowed to work for an unbroken period of almost five
years
is
all
the
same
a
reason
to
consider
him
a
regular
employee.
The attainment of a regular status of employment guarantees the employee's security of tenure that
he cannot be unceremoniously terminated from employment. "To justify fully the dismissal of an
employee, the employer must, as a rule, prove that the dismissal was for a just cause and that the
employee was afforded due process prior to dismissal. As a complementary principle, the employer
has the onus of proving with clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence the validity of the
dismissal.

CENTURY PROPERTIES VS BABIANO

You might also like