Distinguishing Employee vs. Retainer Status for In-House Legal Counsel

G.R. No. 102467, June 13, 1997

The line between an employee and a retained lawyer can blur, especially for in-house legal counsel. This case clarifies the criteria for determining whether an in-house lawyer is considered a regular employee entitled to labor protections or an independent contractor whose services can be terminated more freely. Misclassifying a lawyer can lead to costly illegal dismissal claims.

Introduction

Imagine a company suddenly terminating its in-house legal counsel, claiming a loss of confidence. But what if that counsel was considered a regular employee, entitled to due process and protection against arbitrary dismissal? This scenario highlights the crucial distinction between an employee and a retained lawyer, a distinction that can have significant legal and financial implications for both the company and the lawyer. Equitable Banking Corporation vs. NLRC delves into this very issue, providing valuable guidance on how to classify in-house legal counsel and what rights they are entitled to.

In this case, Ricardo Sadac, Vice-President for the Legal Department and General Counsel of Equitable Banking Corporation, was terminated after other lawyers in his department complained about him. The bank argued that as their legal counsel, his services could be dispensed with at any time. Sadac argued that he was a regular employee and could only be terminated for just cause and with due process. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Sadac, emphasizing the importance of the employer-employee relationship.

Legal Context: Employer-Employee Relationship vs. Retainer Agreement

The core issue revolves around whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The Labor Code of the Philippines provides significant protection to employees, including security of tenure and the right to due process before termination.

According to the Supreme Court, the key elements in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship are:

• Selection and engagement of the employee
• Payment of wages
• Power of dismissal
• Power to control the employee’s conduct

The “control test” is generally considered the most important. This refers to the employer’s right to control not only the result of the work but also the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the presence of this element is a primary indicator of an employer-employee relationship.

In contrast, a retainer agreement establishes an independent contractor relationship. Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court discusses the right of a client to terminate the services of their lawyer. This rule reflects the highly fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship and allows the client to terminate the relationship if they lose confidence in the lawyer. However, this rule typically applies to external counsel, not necessarily in-house lawyers.

Article 282(c) of the Labor Code: “Willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer” is a cause for the termination of employment by an employer. This ground must be founded on facts established by the employer who must clearly and convincingly prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which loss of confidence in the employee may fairly be made to rest; otherwise, the dismissal will be rendered illegal.

Case Breakdown: Equitable Banking Corporation vs. NLRC

Here’s a breakdown of the key events and legal reasoning in Equitable Banking Corporation vs. NLRC:

• Appointment and Responsibilities: Ricardo Sadac was appointed Vice-President for the Legal Department and General Counsel of Equitable Banking Corporation in 1981. His duties included providing legal advice, handling bank cases, and supervising the Legal Department staff.
• Internal Conflict: In 1989, nine lawyers under Sadac’s supervision filed a complaint against him, alleging abusive conduct and mismanagement.
• Bank’s Response: The bank investigated the complaints and, instead of conducting a formal hearing, asked Sadac to resign. They reassigned his cases to another lawyer.
• Sadac’s Refusal: Sadac refused to resign and requested a formal hearing to clear his name.
• NLRC Complaint: After being unheeded, Sadac filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal.
• Bank’s Termination: The bank then formally terminated Sadac’s services, citing a client-lawyer relationship and loss of confidence.

The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed Sadac’s complaint, finding a lawyer-client relationship. However, the NLRC reversed this decision, holding that Sadac was a regular employee and was illegally dismissed.

The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision, stating:

“It would virtually be foolhardy to so challenge the NLRC as having committed grave abuse of discretion in coming up with its above findings. Just to the contrary, NLRC appears to have been rather exhaustive in its examination of this particular question (existence or absence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties).”

The Court emphasized that the bank exercised control over Sadac’s work, paid him a regular salary and benefits, and treated him as an employee. The Court found that the requirements for a valid dismissal under the Labor Code were not followed, specifically the lack of proper notice and hearing.

The Court, however, removed the award of moral and exemplary damages and absolved the individual petitioners from solidary liability.

Practical Implications: Protecting Your Rights and Avoiding Legal Pitfalls

This case offers several important lessons for both employers and in-house legal counsel:

• Proper Classification is Crucial: Clearly define the relationship between the company and its in-house counsel. If the counsel is treated as a regular employee, ensure compliance with all Labor Code requirements.
• Due Process is Essential: Even if the bank had valid cause to terminate the employee, they failed to provide the adequate due process to the employee.
• Substantial Evidence is Required: Loss of confidence must be based on substantial evidence and related to the employee’s performance of duties.

Key Lessons:

• Employers must carefully assess the nature of their relationship with in-house counsel to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
• In-house counsel who are treated as regular employees are entitled to the same rights and protections as other employees under the Labor Code.
• Employers must follow due process requirements when terminating the employment of in-house counsel who are considered regular employees.

Consider this hypothetical: A tech startup hires a lawyer as “Head of Legal,” pays them a fixed monthly salary, requires them to report daily, and integrates them into the company’s organizational structure. This lawyer is likely considered a regular employee, despite their legal expertise.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What factors determine if an in-house counsel is an employee or an independent contractor?

A: The key factors are the employer’s control over the lawyer’s work, the method of payment (salary vs. retainer fee), and the provision of benefits typically given to employees.

Q: Can an employer terminate an in-house counsel simply because they lost confidence in them?

A: If the in-house counsel is deemed a regular employee, loss of confidence must be based on substantial evidence and related to their job performance. Due process must also be followed.

Q: What is due process in the context of employee termination?

A: Due process requires that the employee be given written notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to be heard and defend themselves.

Q: What happens if an employer illegally dismisses an in-house counsel who is considered a regular employee?

A: The employer may be liable for backwages, reinstatement (if appropriate), separation pay, and potentially damages.

Q: How can companies avoid misclassifying their in-house counsel?

A: Companies should carefully review their employment agreements and practices to ensure that they accurately reflect the nature of the relationship with their in-house counsel.

ASG Law specializes in Labor Law, Corporate Law, and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.