FACTS: Registered nurses Jeromie D. Escasinas and Evan Rigor Singco (petitioners) were engaged in 1999 and 1996, respectively, y Dr. Jessica Joyce R. !epito (respondent doctor) to wor" in #er clinic at respondent S#angri$la%s &actan 'sland Resort (S#angri$la) in (eu o) w#ic# s#e was a retained p#ysician. 'n late *++*, petitioners )iled wit# t#e ,-R( a complaint )or regulari.ation, underpayment o) wages, non$payment o) #oliday pay, nig#t s#i)t di))erential and 1/t# mont# pay di))erential against respondents, claiming t#at t#ey are regular employees o) S#angri$la. S#angri$la claimed, #owever, t#at petitioners were not its employees ut o) respondent doctor, t#at 0rticle 112 o) t#e -aor (ode, as amended, does not ma"e it mandatory )or a covered estalis#ment to employ #ealt# personnel, t#at t#e services o) nurses is not germane nor indispensale to its operations, and t#at respondent doctor is a legitimate individual contractor w#o #as t#e power to #ire, )ire and supervise t#e wor" o) nurses under #er. 3#e -aor 0riter (-0) declared petitioners to e regular employees o) S#angri$la, noting t#at t#e petitioners usually per)orm wor" w#ic# is necessary and desirale to S#angri$la%s usiness. 4pon appeal, t#e ,-R( declared t#at no employer$employee relations#ip e5isted etween S#angri$la and petitioners. 't ruled t#at contrary to t#e )inding o) t#e -0, even i) 0rt. *6+ o) t#e -aor (ode states t#at i) a wor"er per)orms wor" usually necessary or desirale in t#e usiness o) an employer, #e cannot e automatically deemed a regular employee, and t#at t#e &emorandum o) 0greement etween t#e respondent and t#e respondent doctor amply s#ows t#at respondent doctor was in )act engaged y S#angri$la on retainer asis, under w#ic# s#e could #ire #er own nurses and ot#er clinic personnel. 3#e (ourt o) 0ppeals ((0) a))irmed t#e ,-R( decision. 7ence, t#is petition. ISSUES: 1. 8#et#er or not 0rticle 112 o) t#e -aor (ode ma"e it mandatory )or covered estalis#ment to employ #ealt# personnel9 NO 2. 8#et#er or not t#ere e5ists an employer$employee relations#ip etween S#angri$la and petitioners. NO HELD: 3#e (ourt #olds t#at, contrary to petitioners% postulation, 0rt. 112 does not re:uire t#e engagement o) )ull$time nurses as regular employees o) a company employing not less t#an 1+ wor"ers. S#angri$la, w#ic# employs more t#an *++ wor"ers, is mandated to ;)urnis#< its employees wit# t#e services o) a )ull$time registered nurse, a part$time p#ysician and dentist, and an emergency clinic w#ic# means t#at it s#ould provide or ma"e availale suc# medical and allied services to its employees, not necessarily to #ire or employ a service provider. ,ot#ing is t#ere in t#e law w#ic# says t#at medical practitioners so engaged e actually #ired as employees, adding t#at t#e law, as written, only re:uires t#e employer ;to retain<, not employ, a part$time p#ysician w#o needed to stay in t#e premises o) t#e non$#a.ardous wor"place )or two (*) #ours. 3#e term ;)ull$time< in 0rt. 112 cannot e construed as re)erring to t#e type o) employment o) t#e person engaged to provide t#e services. 3#e p#rase ;services o) a )ull$time registered nurse< s#ould t#us e ta"en to re)er to t#e "ind o) services t#at t#e nurse will render in t#e company%s premises and to its employees, not t#e manner o) #is engagement. 3#e e5istence o) an independent and permissile contractor relations#ip is generally estalis#ed y considering t#e )ollowing determinants= w#et#er t#e contractor is carrying on an independent usiness9 t#e nature and e5tent o) t#e wor"9 t#e s"ill re:uired9 t#e term and duration o) t#e relations#ip9 t#e rig#t to assign t#e per)ormance o) a speci)ied piece o) wor"9 t#e control and supervision o) t#e wor" to anot#er9 t#e employer>s power wit# respect to t#e #iring, )iring and payment o) t#e contractor>s wor"ers9 t#e control o) t#e premises9 t#e duty to supply t#e premises, tools, appliances, materials and laor9 and t#e mode, manner and terms o) payment. ?n t#e ot#er #and, e5istence o) an employer$ employee relations#ip is estalis#ed y t#e presence o) t#e )ollowing determinants= (1) t#e selection and engagement o) t#e wor"ers9 (*) power o) dismissal9 (/) t#e payment o) wages y w#atever means9 and (@) t#e power to control t#e wor"er>s conduct, wit# t#e latter assuming primacy in t#e overall consideration. 0gainst t#e aove$listed determinants, t#e (ourt #olds t#at respondent doctor is a legitimate independent contractor. 3#at S#angri$la provides t#e clinic premises and medical supplies )or use o) its employees and guests does not necessarily prove t#at respondent doctor lac"s sustantial capital and investment. Aesides, t#e maintenance o) a clinic and provision o) medical services to its employees is re:uired under 0rt. 112, w#ic# are not directly related to S#angri$la%s principal usiness B operation o) #otels and restaurants. 0s to payment o) wages, respondent doctor is t#e one w#o underwrites t#e )ollowing= salaries, SSS contriutions and ot#er ene)its o) t#e sta))9 group li)e, group personal accident insurance and li)eCdeat# insurance )or t#e sta)) wit# minimum ene)it payale at 1* times t#e employee%s last drawn salary, as well as value added ta5es and wit##olding ta5es, sourced )rom #er !6+,+++.++ mont#ly retainer )ee and 2+D s#are o) t#e service c#arges )rom S#angri$la%s guests w#o avail o) t#e clinic services. 't is unli"ely t#at respondent doctor would report petitioners as wor"ers, pay t#eir SSS premium as well as t#eir wages i) t#ey were not indeed #er employees. 8it# respect to t#e supervision and control o) t#e nurses and clinic sta)), it is not disputed t#at a document, ;(linic !olicies and Employee &anual< claimed to #ave een prepared y respondent doctor e5ists, to w#ic# petitioners gave t#eir con)ormity and in w#ic# t#ey ac"nowledged t#eir co$terminus employment status. 't is t#us presumed t#at said document, and not t#e employee manual eing )ollowed y S#angri$la%s regular wor"ers, governs #ow t#ey per)orm t#eir respective tas"s and responsiilities. 'n )ine, as S#angri$la does not control #ow t#e wor" s#ould e per)ormed y petitioners, it is not petitioners% employer.