FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196285. April 21, 2014.]
ERWIN M. GAMBOA, petitioner, vs. VIRATA MEDICAL CLINIC and DR. ARTURO ARLIN S. VIRATA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 21, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 196285 — ERWIN M. GAMBOA, petitioner, v. VIRATA MEDICAL CLINIC and DR. ARTURO ARLIN S. VIRATA, respondents.
The instant case arose from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner Erwin M. Gamboa (Gamboa) against respondents Virata Medical Clinic and Dr. Arturo Arlin S. Virata (Dr. Virata).
Gamboa alleged that sometime in August 2005, Dr. Virata hired him as a medical assistant for the Virata Medical Clinic. He narrated that Dr. Virata did not ask him to submit any diploma, license, résumé or even a curriculum vitae because he had openly disclosed during his job interview that he was not a licensed physician. Gamboa further stated that Dr. Virata allowed him to examine patients, prescribe medicines, and even use Dr. Virata's prescription pads and Professional Tax Receipts (PTR) Number. Gamboa narrated that he was eventually promoted as OIC Chief Resident and took over the duties of Dr. Karen Lebrudo who went on maternity leave. Sometime in July 2007, Dr. Virata allegedly changed his employment status from regular to on-call. Later, Dr. Virata informed the staff that Gamboa was no longer employed and connected with the Virata Medical Clinic. Gamboa alleged that he was refused entry in the clinic, thus prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Respondents, on the other hand, asserted that Gamboa represented himself as a licensed physician throughout his employment. Dr. Virata discovered only in March 2007 that Gamboa had no license to practice medicine when the Department of Health (DOH) required their clinic to submit a list of its staff and their relevant documentation including Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) license numbers in connection with the clinic's application for DOH accreditation as a birthing home. Upon discovering that Gamboa had no license, Dr. Virata allegedly admonished Gamboa who pleaded to stay with the clinic. Dr. Virata stated that he allowed Gamboa to continue his work with the clinic on the condition that he would take and pass the August 2007 Medical Board Examination. According to Dr. Virata, he reminded Gamboa not to perform any surgical procedure or prescribe any medicines to patients unless directly supervised by him or any other licensed physician in the clinic. Dr. Virata claimed that Gamboa violated the conditions imposed on him. Subsequently, Gamboa was assigned to the respondents' newest branch in General Trias, Cavite. According to the respondents, Gamboa accepted his new assignment but never reported to work and instead, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against them. DACaTI
On March 27, 2009, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Gamboa was illegally dismissed and ordered the respondents to pay backwages in the amount of P606,667.00, separation pay in the amount of P112,000.00, and attorney's fees (10% of the aggregate amount or in the amount of P71,866.70).
The Labor Arbiter reasoned that since Gamboa did not hide the fact that he was a non-board passer when he applied as a medical assistant, respondents may not now impugn his qualification since they, too, presented him to the public as someone who was qualified to practice medicine, just like the other staff members who were non-board passers and who worked in respondents' various medical clinics in Cavite. According to the Labor Arbiter, the parties should be "left where they are" since Gamboa cannot continue practicing his profession without the required PRC license and should be "separated from the service, even as he should be vindicated from the abrupt cessation of his employment."
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and held that there was no just cause in the termination of Gamboa's employment. Likewise, the NLRC found that Gamboa was not given any written notice prior to his termination.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied in its Resolution dated July 29, 2010.
Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On January 21, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC Decision and rendered a new one dismissing Gamboa's complaint for illegal dismissal. The Court of Appeals ruled that Gamboa's employment with the respondents was morally and legally wrong from the very beginning; thus, it cannot create security of tenure for the position to which Gamboa was not qualified to hold in the first place. The Court of Appeals held that Gamboa's termination did not amount to illegal dismissal for he never acquired any right to the position of medical assistant, the qualifications for which he does not possess. The Court of Appeals stressed that Gamboa's "appointment to and his assumption to this position is illegal, immoral, and against public policy and public order."
Gamboa filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated March 25, 2011.
Hence, Gamboa filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari, presenting the following issues:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS, WHICH IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED SHALL JUSTIFY A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTESTED DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ARE IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND OBTAINING JURISPRUDENCE.
In the present petition, Gamboa argues that Dr. Virata's cannot deny that he was fully aware of the fact that he was an "under-board doctor" since respondents hired him as a medical assistant and not as a doctor for their clinics. Moreover, review classes and lectures, some of which were held at Dr. Vista's home, were funded by respondents, to help all the employees in his clinics (including Gamboa) prepare for the Medical Board Examinations scheduled in August 2007. Stressing that there is no law that requires a medical assistant to be a duly licensed doctor, Gamboa maintains that his employment as a medical assistant is valid, moral and legal. Thus, Gamboa states that he was illegally dismissed by respondents when he was terminated from service without cause and without having been afforded the opportunity to be heard. HDacIT
In their Comment dated August 23, 2011, respondents state that this Court is not a trier of facts, and that the findings of fact by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that Gamboa worked as a physician, although he was not licensed to do so, during his employment with the respondents, should be accorded respect, even finality. Respondents also contend that even if both parties came to court with unclean hands, since Gamboa practiced medicine without a license and the respondents tolerated this offense after learning that he was not a licensed doctor, they should be left where they were, with no one of them being entitled to any relief. Respondents pray that the petition for review on certiorari filed by Gamboa be denied for lack of merit.
The petition lacks merit.
Gamboa maintains that he never represented himself as a licensed doctor, and that he was hired as a medical assistant who was illegally dismissed without cause and due process of law. This claim, however, is belied by the evidence which both Gamboa and the respondents presented before the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals.
These three — the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals — all agree that Gamboa's employment contract with the respondents should be terminated for being illegal as it is patently contrary to law. At the outset, it must be remembered that the position for which Gamboa was employed required him to be a duly licensed doctor of medicine since he would be providing medical services to the public in the respondents' clinics. Moreover, the acts which Gamboa did while in the respondents' employ included examining and treating patients, prescribing medicines, and performing minor surgeries — activities that can only be done by a licensed doctor of medicine, which unfortunately, he is not. By his admission, he was employed to engage, and he did engage, in the practice of medicine, although he was not a licensed physician. This was in clear contravention of Sections 8 and 10 of Republic Act No. 2382 (otherwise known as the "Medical Act of 1959"), as amended by Republic Act No. 4224, which respectively provide:
Section 8. Prerequisite to the practice of medicine. — No person shall engage in the practice of medicine in the Philippines unless he is at least twenty-one years of age, has satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, and is a holder of a valid Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by the Board of Medical Examiners.
Section 10. Acts constituting practice of medicine. — A person shall be considered as engaged in the practice of medicine (a) who shall, for compensation, fee, salary or reward in any form paid to him directly or through another, or even without the same, physically examine any person, and diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental, psychical condition or any ailment, real or imaginary, regardless of the nature of the remedy or treatment administered, prescribed or recommended; or (b) who shall by means of signs, cards, advertisements, written or printed matter, or through the radio, television or any other means of communication, either offer or undertake by any means or method to diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental or psychical condition; or (c) who shall falsely use the title of M.D. after his name.
A contract is void in which the cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, public order or public policy. 1 A void contract is legally nonexistent. It produces no legal effect and courts leave parties to such a contract as they are because they are in pari delicto or equally at fault. Neither party is entitled to legal protection. 2 Thus, we uphold the Court of Appeals' ruling that Gamboa's employment contract with the respondents cannot create security of tenure for Gamboa to a position which he was never qualified to hold. Hence, Gamboa's removal from such post did not result in illegal dismissal for he never acquired any right to the said position. ICHDca
Furthermore, this arrangement between Gamboa and the respondents renders both parties equally at fault since both misled the public into believing that Gamboa was a duly licensed doctor of medicine authorized to perform all the medical services that respondents' clinics offer to the public. Both Gamboa and the respondents came to court with unclean hands so the court will leave them where they are. They were in pari delicto. They cannot be afforded any remedy or affirmative relief against each other.
The pari delicto rule is intended for the protection of the public and not for the benefit of the parties. Its object in refusing relief to either party to the contract is not to give validity to the transaction but to deprive the parties of all rights to have either enforcement of or relief from the illegal agreement. 3
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the Decision dated January 21, 2011 and Resolution dated March 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115975 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Article 1409, Civil Code.
2. Menchavez v. Teves, Jr., 490 Phil. 268, 270 (2005).
3. Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary (1988), p. 457, citing Esquibal v. Banago, 78 OG 4158.