SEVILLA v. CA 160 SCRA 171; April 15, 1998 FACTS On the strength of a contract, Tourist World Service Inc.

(TWS) leased the premises belonging to Mrs. Segundina Noguera for the former s use as a branch office. Lina Sevilla bound herself solidarily liable with TWS for the prompt payment of the monthly rentals thereon. When the branch office was opened, it was run by appellant Sevilla payable to TWS by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Sevilla, 4% was to go to Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by TWS. TWS appears to have been informed that Sevilla was connected with a rival firm, the Philippine Travel Bureau, and, since the branch office was anyhow losing, the TWS considered closing down its office. Two resolutions of the TWS board of directors were passed to abolish the office of the manager and vice president of the branch office and authorizing the corporate secretary to receive the properties in the said branch office. Subsequently, the corporate secretary went to the branch office, and finding the premises locked and being unable to contact Sevilla, padlocked the premises to protect the interests of TWS. When neither Sevilla nor her employees could enter the locked premises, she filed a complaint against TWS with a prayer for the issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction. The trial court dismissed the case holding that TWS, being the true lessee, was within its prerogative to terminate the lease and padlock the premises. It likewise found that Sevilla was a mere employee of TWS and as such, was bound by the acts of her employer. The CA affirmed. Hence this petition. ISSUES 1. Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between TWS and Sevilla? 2. Whether or not the padlocking of the premises by TWS without the knowledge and consent of Sevilla entitled the latter to the relief of damages prayed for? HELD 1. NO. It was a principal-agent relationship. In this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. In general, We have relied on the so-called right of control test, where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. In addition, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, are also considered in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. y y Sevilla was not subject to control by TWS either as to the result of the enterprise or as to the means used in connection therewith. Under the contract of lease, Sevilla bound herself in solidum for the rental payments; an arrangement that would belie the claims of a master-servant relationship for a true employee cannot be made to part with his own money in pursuance of his employer s business, or otherwise assume liability thereof. Sevilla was not in the company s payroll. She retained 4% in commissions from airline bookings, the remaining 3% going to TWS. Unlike an employee who usually earns a fixed salary, she earned compensation in fluctuating amounts depending on her booking successes. The fact that Sevilla has been designated branch manager does not make her, ergo, TWS employee. Employment is determined by the right of control test and certain economic parameters. Titles are weak indicators. When Sevilla agreed to man TWS Ermita branch office, she did so pursuant to a contract of agency. It is the essence of this contract that the agent renders services in representation or on behalf of another . In the case at bar, Sevilla solicited airline fares, but she did so for and on behalf of her principal, TWS.

y y

2. YES. For its unwarranted revocation of the contact of agency, TWS should be sentenced to pay damages. y Sevilla had acquired a personal stake in the business itself, and necessarily, in the equipment pertaining thereto. y Sevilla was not a stranger to that contract of lease having been explicitly named therein as third party in charge of rental payments. She could not be ousted from possession summarily as one would eject an interloper. The Court is satisfied with the chronicle of events, there was indeed some malevolent design to put the petitioner Sevilla in a bad light following the disclosures that she had worked for a rival firm.