Landmark Decisions
True, We lawyers build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures-- unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.
- John W. Davis
SUPREME COURT DECLARES FITNESS TRAINERS OF A GYM CHAIN AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES
G.R. No. 266552, Escauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil., Inc
The Supreme Court applied the four-fold test governing the employer-employee relationship to determine whether several fitness trainers were employees of Fitness First Phil, Inc.
Under this test, four factors must be proven: (a) the employer's selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power to dismiss; and (d) the power to control the employee's conduct, which the Court stressed as the most significant factor. In declaring the trainers to be regular employees of Fitness First, the Court underscored that the gym held the power to dismiss the trainers when it became manifest that the latter were unqualified or unfit to discharge their duties or failed to comply with the monthly Minimum Performance Standards under their Freelance Personal Trainer Agreement.
Moreover, the trainers also performed tasks necessary and desirable for Fitness First's principal business of providing health programs/packages and physical training to its clients. To ensure the quality of services that Fitness First provides, the trainers were required to attend all educational training sessions and other relevant events. The Court further noted that Fitness First even kept track of the trainers' performance, with some of them being lauded for their exemplary work. The Court also held that even when applying the economic dependence test, where the circumstances of the entire economic activity are considered in determining the relationship between employer and employee, the conclusion would still be the same
SUPREME COURT DECLARES Power to Revoke PhilHealth Accreditation Belongs to
PhilHealth Board, not its President
G.R. No. 271209, PhilHealth v. Galauran
The Supreme Court ruled that the Board of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), rather than its President, has the authority to revoke the accreditations of health care professionals. The Court ruled that PhilHealth unlawfully revoked the accreditation of Dr. Jose Mari Del Valle Galauran (Dr. Galauran)
7th Floor, Victoria Sports Tower, South Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City
(02) 8370 2894
