You are on page 1of 23

GREGORIO V. TONGKO, petitioner, vs. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO.

(PHILS., INC. !n" RENATO A. VERGEL #E #IOS, respon"ents.


G.R. No. $%&%''. (!n)!r* '+, ',$$.-
Labor Law; Agency; Employer-Employee Relationship; Control over the performance of the task of
one providing serviceboth with respect to the means and manner, and the reslts of the service
is the primary element in determining whether an employment relationship e!ists; "anlife#s
control fell short of this norm and carried only the characteristic of the relationship between an
insrance company and its agents, as defined by the $nsrance Code and by the law of agency
nder the Civil Code%Control over the performance of the task of one providing serviceboth
with respect to the means and manner, and the reslts of the serviceis the primary element in
determining whether an employment relationship e!ists% &e resolve the petitioner#s "otion against
his favor since he failed to show that the control "anlife e!ercised over him was the control
re'ired to e!ist in an employer-employee relationship; "anlife#s control fell short of this norm and
carried only the characteristic of the relationship between an insrance company and its agents, as
defined by the $nsrance Code and by the law of agency nder the Civil Code%
(ame; (ame; (ame; )he $nsrance Code provides definite parameters in the way an agent
negotiates for the sale of the company#s insrance prodcts, his collection activities and his
delivery of the insrance contract or policy; )he Civil Code defines an agent as a person who binds
himself to do something in behalf of another, with the consent or athority of the latter%$n or
*ne +,, +-.- Resoltion, we noted that there are bilt-in elements of control specific to an
insrance agency, which do not amont to the elements of control that characteri/e an employment
relationship governed by the Labor Code% )he $nsrance Code provides definite parameters in the
way an agent negotiates for the sale of the company#s insrance prodcts, his collection activities
and his delivery of the insrance contract or policy% $n addition, the Civil Code defines an agent as
a person who binds himself to do something in behalf of another, with the consent or athority of
the latter% Article .001 of the Civil Code also provides that in the e!ection of the agency, the agent
shall act in accordance with the instrctions of the principal%
(ame; (ame; (ame; Codes of condct are norms or standards of behavior rather than employer
directives into how specific tasks are to be done; )hese codes as well as insrance indstry rles
and reglations are not per se indicative of labor law control nder over 2risprdence%)o
reiterate, gidelines indicative of labor law 3control4 do not merely relate to the mtally desirable
reslt intended by the contractal relationship; they mst have the natre of dictating the means
and methods to be employed in attaining the reslt% )ested by this norm, "anlife#s instrctions
regarding the ob2ectives and sales targets, in connection with the training and engagement of other
agents, are among the directives that the principal may impose on the agent to achieve the
assigned tasks% )hey are targeted reslts that "anlife wishes to attain throgh its agents%
"anlife#s codes of condct, likewise, do not necessarily intrde into the insrance agents# means
and manner of condcting their sales% Codes of condct are norms or standards of behavior rather
than employer directives into how specific tasks are to be done% )hese codes, as well as insrance
indstry rles and reglations, are not per se indicative of labor law control nder or
2risprdence%
(ame; (ame; (ame; )he mandate of the Cort, of corse, is to decide cases based on the facts
and the law and not to base its conclsions on fndamental precepts that are far removed from the
particlar case presented before it%)o spport its argments on e'ity, the 5issent ses the
Constittion and the Civil Code, sing provisions and principles that are all motherhood
statements% )he mandate of the Cort, of corse, is to decide cases based on the facts and the
law, and not to base its conclsions on fndamental precepts that are far removed from the
particlar case presented before it% &hen there is no room for their application, of capacity of
principles, reliance on the application of these fndamental principles is misplaced%
(ame; (ame; (ame; )he cited cases in the 5issentwhere changes in company-agent
relationship e!pressly changed and where the sbse'ent contracts where the ones passed pon
by the Cortcannot be totally relied pon as athoritative%$n 6reat 7acific Life, the Ri/
brothers were appointed to positions different from their original positions as insrance agents,
whose dties were clearly defined in a sbse'ent contract% (imilarly, in $nslar, de los Reyes, a
former insrance agent, was appointed as acting nit manager based on a sbse'ent contract% $n
both cases, the Cort anchored its findings of labor control on the stiplations of these sbse'ent
contracts% $n contrast, the present case is remarkable for the absence of evidence of any change in
the natre of the petitioner#s employment with "anlife% As previosly stated above and in or
assailed Resoltion, the petitioner had always been governed by the Agreement from the start ntil
the end of his relationship with "anlife% 8is agency stats never changed e!cept to the e!tent of
being a lead agent% )hs, the cited caseswhere changes in company-agent relationship
e!pressly changed and where the sbse'ent contracts were the ones passed pon by the Cort
cannot be totally relied pon as athoritative%
(ame; (ame; (ame; 9r rling in the present case is specific to the insrance indstry where the
law permits an insrance company to e!ercise control over its agents within the limits prescribed
by law and to engage independent agents for several transactions and within an nlimited period of
time withot the relationship amonting to employment%)he evidentiary sitation in the present
case, however, shows that despite the petitioner#s insistence that the Agreement was no longer
binding between him and "anlife, no evidence was ever addced to show that their relationship
changed so that "anlife at some point controlled the means and method of the petitioner#s work%
$n fact, his evidence only frther spports the conclsion that he remained an independent
insrance agenta stats he admits, sb2ect only to the 'alification that he is at the same time an
employee% )hs, we can only conclde that the Agreement governed his relations with "anlife%
Additionally, it is not lost on s that 7agio is a rling based on a different factal setting; it involves
a pblishing firm and an accont e!ective, whose repeated engagement was considered as an
indication of employment% 9r rling in the present case is specific to the insrance indstry, where
the law permits an insrance company to e!ercise control over its agents within the limits
prescribed by law, and to engage independent agents for several transactions and within an
nlimited period of time withot the relationship amonting to employment% $n light of these
realities, the petitioner#s argments on his last argment mst also fail%
:ELA(C9, *R%, *%, 5issenting 9pinion;
Labor Law; Agency; Employer-Employee Relationship; )he Cort has the responsibility to ensre
that the rights of labor, as garanteed by the constittion, are actally en2oyed by the workers;
&hen there is dobt as to the law to be applied in a case with an allegation of an employer-
employee relationship, labor laws and 2risprdence shall apply%)he mandate of this Cort is to
ensre that the provisions of the Constittion are carried ot% )he Cort has the responsibility to
1 | To n g k o
ensre that the rights of labor, as garanteed by the Constittion, are actally en2oyed by the
workers% )hs, in several cases, the Cort has repeatedly resolved dobts as to the relationship
between parties as that of employment, that which is most favorable to labor% )he Cort, in a slew
of cases, has consistently rled that when there is dobt as to the law to be applied in a case with
an allegation of an employer-employee relationship, labor laws and 2risprdence shall apply%
(ame; (ame; (ame; )he for-fold test mst be sed to determine whether )ongko was an
employee of "anlife or not, and not the $nsrance Code or Civil Code as claimed by "anlife%
<ased on the above-mentioned sample of nmeros cases, the Cort has invariably applied labor
laws and doctrines, particlarly the for-fold and control test, over Civil Code provisions, to
determine the relationship of parties where an employer-employee relationship is alleged, withot
regard to the indstry or otherwise alleged relationship of the parties% )he Cort cannot now
deviate from established precedents% )he for-fold test mst be sed to determine whether )ongko
was an employee of "anlife or not, and not the $nsrance Code or Civil Code as claimed by
"anlife%
(ame; (ame; (ame; Elements constitting the for-fold test, sally considered in determining the
e!istence of an employer-employee relationship%As a matter of long and settled 2risprdence,
the following are the elements, constitting the for-fold test, sally considered in determining the
e!istence of an employer-employee relationship; =a> the selection of the employee; =b> the payment
of wages; =c> the power of dismissal; and =d> the power to control the employee#s condct, with the
3control test4 being the most crcial or generally assming primacy in the overall consideration%
(ame; (ame; (ame; ?ollowing the stare decisis rle, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to
withhold from herein petitioner the benefits accring from an employer-employee relationship%
)he @LRC, taking stock of the affidavits of petitioner#s fellow insrance managers therein detailing
their dties, had conclded that petitioner was an employee of "anlife% $ndeed, the dties,
responsibilities and ndertakings of these insrance managers are strikingly similar to those of
Ernesto and Rodrigo Ri/, as set forth in the 5ecision in 6reat 7acific Life Assrance Corporation
v% @LRC, .01 (CRA A,B =.,,->% )here, the Cort decreed that the brothers Ri/ were employees
of 6repalife% )he reasons behind the declaration need no belaboring% (ffice it to state that vis-C-
vis the Ri/es in 6repalife, "anlife had control of the means and methods employed by the
petitioner in the performance of his work as a manager of "anlife% ?ollowing the stare decisis rle,
there seems to be no rhyme or reason to withhold from herein petitioner the benefits accring from
an employer-employee relationship%
(ame; (ame; (ame; )he fact that the work of the alleged independent contractor is sally
necessary or desirable in the sal bsiness or trade of the employer wold establish a
management strctre that wold mean that )ongko was "anlife#s employee%&hile this Cort
has already rled that Article +0- of the Labor Code may not be sed to prove the e!istence of an
employer-employee relationship when the same is denied, the fact that the work of the alleged
independent contractor is sally necessary or desirable in the sal bsiness or trade of the
employer wold establish a management strctre that wold mean that )ongko was "anlife#s
employee%
(ame; (ame; (ame; $ndependent Contractors; )ongko cannot be considered as an independent
contractor of "anlife; Re'irements for a worker to be considered an independent contractor%$t
bears pointing ot that )ongko cannot be considered as an independent contractor of "anlife%
)here is no evidence to establish sch a scenario% $n )elevision and 7rodction E!ponents, $nc% v%
(ervaDa, EB+ (CRA E10 =+--0>, the Cort enmerates the re'irements for a worker to be
considered an independent contractor; Aside from possessing sbstantial capital or investment, a
legitimate 2ob contractor or sbcontractor carries on a distinct and independent bsiness and
ndertakes to perform the 2ob, work or service on its own accont and nder its own responsibility
according to its own manner and method, and free from the control and direction of the principal in
all matters connected with the performance of the work e!cept as to the reslts thereof% )A7E
failed to establish that respondent is an independent contractor% As fond by the Cort of Appeals;
&e find the anne!es sbmitted by the private respondents insfficient to prove that herein
petitioner is indeed an independent contractor% @one of the above conditions e!ist in the case at
bar% 7rivate respondents failed to show that petitioner has sbstantial capital or investment to be
'alified as an independent contractor% )hey likewise failed to present a written contract which
specifies the performance of a specified piece of work, the natre and e!tent of the work and the
term and dration of the relationship between herein petitioner and private respondent )A7E%
(ame; (ame; (ame; (ame; Cort has already rled that an individal may be an employee of an
insrance agency while concrrently being allowed to sell insrance policies for the same
company%$n two =+> cases, the Cort has already rled that an individal may be an employee of
an insrance agency while concrrently being allowed to sell insrance policies for the same
company% $n the $nslar Life case, $nslar Assrance Co%, Ltd% =$nslar> entered into an agency
contract with 7antaleon de los Reyes athori/ing the latter to solicit within the 7hilippines
applications for life insrance and annities for which he wold be paid compensation in the form of
commissions% Later, on "arch ., .,,F, the same parties entered into another contract where de los
Reyes was appointed as Acting Gnit "anager% )he dties and responsibilities of de los Reyes
inclded the recritment, training, organi/ation and development within his designated territory of a
sfficient nmber of 'alified, competent and trstworthy nderwriters, and to spervise and
coordinate the sales efforts of the nderwriters in the active solicitation of new bsiness and in the
frtherance of the agency#s assigned goals%
(ame; (ame; (ame; (ame; Any fear that the grant of )ongko#s motion for reconsideration shall
render all insrance agents in the contry as employees of insrance companies is badly
misplaced% )he declaration that )ongko is an employee of "anlife, having performed
administrative fnctions as its manager, cannot be applied to insrance agents in general% Any
finding of an employer-employee relationship shall always be on a case-to-case basis% )he instant
case is no e!ception% Any fear that the grant of )ongko#s motion for reconsideration shall render all
insrance agents in the contry as employees of insrance companies is badly misplaced%
"9)$9@ ?9R REC9@($5ERA)$9@ of a decision of the (preme Cort%
)he facts are stated in the resoltion of the Cort%
Ronald Re! (% Recidoro H Associates for petitioner%
7i/arras H Associates Law 9ffice for respondents%
R E S O L U T I O N
2 | To n g k o
<R$9@, *%;
&e resolve petitioner 6regorio :% )ongko#s bid, throgh his "otion for Reconsideration,. to set
aside or *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion that reversed or 5ecision of @ovember 1, +--0%+ &ith the
reversal, the assailed *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion effectively affirmed the Cort of Appeals# rlingF in
CA-6%R% (7 @o% 00+EF that the petitioner was an insrance agent, not the employee, of the
respondent )he "anfactrers Life $nsrance Co% =7hils%>, $nc% ="anlife>%
$n his "otion for Reconsideration, petitioner reiterates the argments he had belabored in his
petition and varios other sbmissions% 8e arges that for ., years, he performed administrative
fnctions and e!ercised spervisory athority over employees and agents of "anlife, in addition
to his insrance agent fnctions%B $n these ., years, he was designated as a Gnit "anager, a
<ranch "anager and a Regional (ales "anager, and now posits that he was not only an insrance
agent for "anlife bt was its employee as well%
&e find no basis or any error to merit the reconsideration of or *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion%
A% Labor Law Control I Employment Relationship
Control over the performance of the task of one providing serviceboth with respect to the means
and manner, and the reslts of the serviceis the primary element in determining whether an
employment relationship e!ists% &e resolve the petitioner#s "otion against his favor since he failed
to show that the control "anlife e!ercised over him was the control re'ired to e!ist in an
employer-employee relationship; "anlife#s control fell short of this norm and carried only the
characteristic of the relationship between an insrance company and its agents, as defined by the
$nsrance Code and by the law of agency nder the Civil Code%
)he petitioner asserts in his "otion that "anlife#s labor law control over him was demonstrated =.>
when it set the ob2ectives and sales targets regarding prodction, recritment and training
programs; and =+> when it prescribed the Code of Condct for Agents and the "anlife ?inancial
Code of Condct to govern his activities%E &e find no merit in these contentions%
$n or *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion, we noted that there are bilt-in elements of control specific to an
insrance agency, which do not amont to the elements of control that characteri/e an employment
relationship governed by the Labor Code% )he $nsrance Code provides definite parameters in the
way an agent negotiates for the sale of the company#s insrance prodcts, his collection activities
and his delivery of the insrance contract or policy%A $n addition, the Civil Code defines an agent as
a person who binds himself to do something in behalf of another, with the consent or athority of
the latter%1 Article .001 of the Civil Code also provides that in the e!ection of the agency, the
agent shall act in accordance with the instrctions of the principal%
All these, read withot any clear nderstanding of fine legal distinctions, appear to speak of control
by the insrance company over its agents% )hey are, however, controls aimed only at specific
reslts in ndertaking an insrance agency, and are, in fact, parameters set by law in defining an
insrance agency and the attendant dties and responsibilities an insrance agent mst observe
and ndertake% )hey do not reach the level of control into the means and manner of doing an
assigned task that invariably characteri/es an employment relationship as defined by labor law%
?rom this perspective, the petitioner#s contentions cannot prevail%
)o reiterate, gidelines indicative of labor law 3control4 do not merely relate to the mtally
desirable reslt intended by the contractal relationship; they mst have the natre of dictating the
means and methods to be employed in attaining the reslt%0 )ested by this norm, "anlife#s
instrctions regarding the ob2ectives and sales targets, in connection with the training and
engagement of other agents, are among the directives that the principal may impose on the agent
to achieve the assigned tasks% )hey are targeted reslts that "anlife wishes to attain throgh its
agents% "anlife#s codes of condct, likewise, do not necessarily intrde into the insrance agents#
means and manner of condcting their sales%
Codes of condct are norms or standards of behavior rather than employer directives into how
specific tasks are to be done% )hese codes, as well as insrance indstry rles and reglations, are
not per se indicative of labor law control nder or 2risprdence%,
)he dties.- that the petitioner enmerated in his "otion are not spported by evidence and,
therefore, deserve scant consideration% Even assming their e!istence, however, they mostly
pertain to the dties of an insrance agent sch as remitting insrance fees to "anlife, delivering
policies to the insred, and after-sale services% ?or agents leading other
7etitioner asserts that;
3Aside from soliciting insrance for "anlife, petitioner was re'ired to sbmit to the Company all
completed applications for insrance and to deliver policies, receive, collect and remit premims to
respondent "anlife% 7etitioner was re'ired to se only sales materials and illstrations that were
approved by "anlife% 8e was even re'ired to provide after-sales services, inclding the
forwarding of all written complaints to "anlife#s 8ead 9ffice% 7etitioner as also obliged to trn over
to "anlife any and all sms of money collected by him% 8e was frther tasked to interview
potential recrits both for his direct nit and nits nder the "etro @orth Region of "anlife%
8owever, the appointment of these recrits is sb2ect to the approval of "anlife% Likewise, he
coordinated planning Jey Reslt Areas for all the sbordinate managers and distribte to
sbordinate managers and agents "anlife memos, copies of the 9fficial Receipt, 5aily E!ception
Reports, 9verde @otice Reports, 7olicy Contracts, Retrned Check @otices, and Agent#s
(tatement of Acconts and post on the blletin board the 5aily 7rodction Report, <ack-ended
Cases Report and 5aily Collection Reports% )o reiterate, petitioner was tasked to spervise agents
and managers assigned to his nit, the "etro @orth Region% $t was "anlife who e!ercised the
power to assign and remove agents nder his spervision%4 agents, these inclde the task of
overseeing other insrance agents, the recritment of other insrance agents engaged by "anlife
as principal, and ensring that these other agents comply with the paperwork necessary in selling
insrance% )hat "anlife e!ercises the power to assign and remove agents nder the petitioner#s
spervision is in keeping with its role as a principal in an agency relationship; they are "anlife
agents in the same manner that the petitioner had all along been a "anlife agent%
)he petitioner also 'estions "anlife#s act of investing him with different titles and positions in the
corse of their relationship, given the respondents# position that he simply fnctioned as an
insrance agent%.. 8e also considers it an n2st and ine'itable sitation that he wold be
nrewarded for the years he spent as a nit manager, a branch manager, and a regional sales
manager%.+
<ased on the evidence on record, the petitioner#s occpation was to sell "anlife#s insrance
policies and prodcts from .,11 ntil the termination of the Career Agent#s Agreement
3 | To n g k o
=Agreement>% )he evidence also shows that throgh the years, "anlife permitted him to e!ercise
giding athority over other agents who operate nder their own agency agreements with "anlife
and whose commissions he shared%.F Gnder this schemean arrangement that pervades the
insrance indstrypetitioner in effect became a 3lead agent4 and his own commissions increased
as they inclded his share in the commissions of the other agents;.B he also received greater
reimbrsements for e!penses and was allowed to se "anlife#s facilities% 8is designation also
changed from nit manager to branch manager and then to regional sales manager, to reflect the
increase in the nmber of agents he recrited and gided, as well as the increase in the area
where these agents operated%
As or assailed Resoltion conclded and as we now similarly conclde, these arrangements, and
the titles and positions the petitioner was invested with, did not change his stats from the
insrance agent that he had always been =as evidenced by the Agreement that governed his
relationship with "anlife from the start to its disagreeable end>% )he petitioner simply progressed
from his individal agency to being a lead agent who cold se other agents in selling insrance
and share in the earnings of these other agents%
$n sm, we find absoltely no evidence of labor law control, as e!tensively discssed in or
Resoltion of *ne +,, +-.-, granting "anlife#s motion for reconsideration% )he 5issent,
nfortnately, misses this point%
<% @o Reslting $ne'ity
&e also do not agree that or assailed Resoltion has the effect of fostering an ine'itable or
n2st sitation% )he records show that the petitioner was very amply paid for his services as an
insrance agent, who also shared in the commissions of the other agents nder his gidance% $n
.,,1, his income was 7+,0++,A+-; in .,,0, 7B,0-E,.AA%FB; in .,,,, 7A,1,1,0.B%-E; in +--.,
7A,+.B,1F1%..; and in +--+, 70,--F,.0-%F0% All these he earned as an insrance agent, as he
failed to ever prove that he earned these sms as an employee% $n technical terms, he cold not
have earned all these as an employee becase he failed to provide the sbstantial evidence
re'ired in administrative cases to spport the finding that he was a "anlife employee% @o
ine'ity reslts nder this legal sitation; what wold be n2st is an award of backwages and
separation payamonts that are not de him becase he was never an employee%
)he 5issent#s discssion on this aspect of the case begins with the wide disparity in the stats of
the partiesthat "anlife is a big Canadian insrance company while )ongko is bt a single agent
of "anlife% )he 5issent then went on to say that 3KiLf is bt 2st, it is bt right, that the Cort
interprets the relationship between )ongko and "anlife as one of employment nder labor laws
and to phold his constittionally protected right, as an employee, to secrity of tenre and
entitlement to monetary award shold sch right be infringed%4.E &e cannot simply invoke the
magical formla by creating an employment relationship even when there is none becase of the
navoidable and inherently weak position of an individal over a giant corporation%
)he 5issent likewise allded to an ambigity in the tre relationship of the parties after )ongko#s
sccessive appointments% &e already pointed ot that the legal significance of these appointments
had not been sfficiently e!plained and that it did not help that )ongko never bothered to present
evidence on this point% )he 5issent recogni/ed this bt tried to e!cse )ongko from this failre in
the sbse'ent discssion, as follows;
3KoLther evidence was addced to show sch dties and responsibilities% ?or one, in his letter of
@ovember A, +--., respondent 5e 5ios addressed petitioner as sales manager% And as $ wrote in
my 5issent to the *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion, it is difficlt to imagine that "anlife did not isse
promotional appointments to petitioner as nit manager, branch manager, and, eventally, regional
sales manager% (ond management practice simply re'ires an appointment for any pward
personnel movement, particlarly when additional fnctions and the corresponding increase in
compensation are involved% )hen, too, the adverted affidavits of the managers of "anlife as to the
dties and responsibilities of a nit manager, sch as petitioner, point to the conclsion that these
managers were employees of "anlife, applying the 3for-fold4 test%4.A
)his Cort =and all ad2dicators for that matter> cannot and shold not fill in the evidentiary gaps in
a party#s case that the party failed to spport; we cannot and shold not take the cdgels for any
party% )ongko failed to spport his case and we shold simply view him and his case as they are;
or dty is to sit as a 2dge in the case that he and the respondent presented%
)o spport its argments on e'ity, the 5issent ses the Constittion and the Civil Code, sing
provisions and principles that are all motherhood statements% )he mandate of the Cort, of corse,
is to decide cases based on the facts and the law, and not to base its conclsions on fndamental
precepts that are far removed from the particlar case presented before it% &hen there is no room
for their application, of capacity of principles, reliance on the application of these fndamental
principles is misplaced%
C% Earnings were Commissions
)hat his earnings were agent#s commissions arising from his work as an insrance agent is a
matter that the petitioner cannot deny, as these are the declarations and representations he stated
in his income ta! retrns throgh the years% $t wold be dobly n2st, particlarly to the
government, if he wold be allowed at this late point to trn arond and sccessflly claim that he
was merely an employee after he declared himself, throgh the years, as an independent self-
employed insrance agent with the privilege of dedcting bsiness e!penses% )his aspect of the
case aloneconsidered together with the probative vale of income ta! declarations and retrns
filed prior to the present controversyshold be enogh to clinch the present case against the
petitioner#s favor%%
5% )he 5issent#s (oltion;
Gnwieldy and Legally $nfirm
)he 5issent proposes that )ongko shold be considered as part employee =as manager> and part
insrance agent; hence, the original decision shold be modified to pertain only to the termination
of his employment as a manager and not as an insrance agent% Accordingly, the backwages
component of the original award to him shold not inclde the insrance sales commissions% )his
soltion, according to the line taken by the 5issent then, was 2stified on the view that this was
made on a case-to-case basis%
5ecisions of the (preme Cort, as the Civil Code provides, form part of the law of the land% &hen
the Cort states that the determination of the e!istence of an employment relationship shold be
on a case-to-case basis, this does not mean that there will be as many laws on the isse as there
are cases% $n the conte!t of this case, the for-fold test is the established standard for determining
4 | To n g k o
employer-employee relationship and the e!istence of these elements, most notably control, is the
basis pon which a conclsion on the absence of employment relationship was anchored% )his
simply means that a conclsion on whether employment relationship e!ists in a particlar case
largely depends on the facts and, in no small measre, on the parties# evidence vis-C-vis the clearly
defined 2risprdential standards% 6iven that the parties control what and how the facts will be
established in a particlar case andMor how a particlar sit is to be litigated, deciding the isses on
a case-to-case basis becomes an imperative%
Another legal reality, a more important one, is that the dty of a cort is to say what the law is%.1
)his is the same dty of the (preme Cort that nderlies the stare decisis principle% )his is how
the pblic, in general and the insrance indstry in particlar, views the role of this Cort and
corts in general in deciding cases% )he lower corts and the bar, most specially, look p to the
rlings of this Cort for gidance% Gnless e!tremely navoidable, the Cort mst, as a matter of
sond 2dicial policy, resist the temptation of branding its rling pro hac vice%
)he compromise soltion of declaring )ongko both an employee and an agent is legally nrealistic,
nwieldy and is, in fact, legally infirm, as it goes against the above basic principles of 2dicial
operation% Likewise, it does not and cannot realistically solve the problemMisse in this case; it
actally leaves more 'estions than answers%
As already pointed ot, there is no legal basis =be it stattory or 2risprdential> for the part-
employeeMpart-insrance agent stats nder an essentially principal-agent contractal relation
which the 5issent proposes to accord to )ongko% $f the 5issent intends to establish one, this is
highly ob2ectionable for this wold amont to 2dicial legislation% A legal relationship, be it one of
employment or one based on a contract other than employment, e!ists as a matter of law prsant
to the facts, incidents and legal conse'ences of the relationship; it cannot e!ist devoid of these
legally defined nderlying facts and legal conse'ences nless the law itself creates the
relationshipan act that is beyond the athority of this Cort to do%
Additionally, the 5issent#s conclsion completely ignores an navoidable legal realitythat the
parties are bond by a contract of agency that clearly sbsists notwithstanding the sccessive
designation of )ongko as a nit manager, a branch manager and a regional sales manager% =As
already e!plained in or Resoltion granting "anlife#s motion for reconsideration, no evidence on
record e!ists to provide the Cort with cles as to the precise impact of all these designations on
the contractal agency relationship%> )he 5issent, it mst be pointed ot, concldes that )ongko#s
employment as manager was illegally terminated; ths, he shold be accordingly afforded relief
therefor% <t, can )ongko be given the remedies incidental to his dismissal as manager separately
from his stats as an insrance agentN $n other words, since the respondents terminated all
relationships with )ongko throgh the termination letter, can we simply rle that his role as a
manager was illegally terminated withot toching on the conse'ences of this rling on his stats
as an insrance agentN E!pressed in these terms, the inseparability of his contract as agent with
any other relationship that springs therefrom can ths be seen as an insrmontable legal
obstacle%
)he 5issent#s compromise approach wold also sanction split 2risdiction% )he labor tribnals shall
have 2risdiction over )ongko#s employment as manager while another entity shall decide the
issesMcases arising from the agency relationship% $f the managerial employment is anchored on
the agency, how will the labor tribnals decide an isse that is ine!tricably linked with a relationship
that is otside the loop of their 2risdictionN As already mentioned in the Resoltion granting
"anlife#s reconsideration, the 59"$@A@) relationship in this case is agency and no other%
E% )he 5issent#s Cited Cases
)he 5issent cites the cases of 6reat 7acific Life Assrance Corporation v% @ational Labor
Relations Commission.0 and $nslar Life Assrance Co%, Ltd% v% @ational Labor Relations
Commission., to spport the allegation that "anlife e!ercised control over the petitioner as an
employer%
$n considering these rlings, a reality that cannot bt be recogni/ed is that cases trn and are
decided on the basis of their own ni'e facts; the rling in one case cannot simply be bodily lifted
and applied to another, particlarly when notable differences e!ist between the cited cases and the
case nder consideration; their respective facts mst be strictly e!amined to ensre that the rling
in one applies to another%
)his is particlarly tre in a comparison of the cited cases with the present case% (pecifically, care
shold be taken in reading the cited cases and applying their rlings to the present case as the
cited cases all dealt with the proper legal characteri/ation of sbse'ent management contracts
that sperseded the original agency contract between the insrance company and the agent%
$n 6reat 7acific Life, the Ri/ brothers were appointed to positions different from their original
positions as insrance agents, whose dties were clearly defined in a sbse'ent contract%
(imilarly, in $nslar, de los Reyes, a former insrance agent, was appointed as acting nit manager
based on a sbse'ent contract% $n both cases, the Cort anchored its findings of labor control on
the stiplations of these sbse'ent contracts%
$n contrast, the present case is remarkable for the absence of evidence of any change in the natre
of the petitioner#s employment with "anlife% As previosly stated above and in or assailed
Resoltion, the petitioner had always been governed by the Agreement from the start ntil the end
of his relationship with "anlife% 8is agency stats never changed e!cept to the e!tent of being a
lead agent% )hs, the cited caseswhere changes in company-agent relationship e!pressly
changed and where the sbse'ent contracts were the ones passed pon by the Cortcannot
be totally relied pon as athoritative%
&e cannot give credit as well to the petitioner#s claim of employment based on the affidavits
e!ected by other "anlife agents describing their dties, becase these same affidavits only
affirm their stats as independent agents, not as employees% )o 'ote these varios claims; +-
.%a% $ have no fi!ed wages or salary since my services are compensated by way of commissions
based on the compted premims paid in fll on the policies obtained thereat;
.%b% $ have no fi!ed working hors and employ my own method in soliciting insrance at a time
and place $ see fit;
.%c% $ have my own assistant and messenger who handle my daily work load;
.%d% $ se my own facilities, tools, materials and spplies in carrying ot my bsiness of selling
insrance;
5 | To n g k o
! ! ! !
A% $ have my own staff that handles day to day operations of my office;
1% "y staff are my own employees and received salaries from me;
! ! ! !
,% "y commission and incentives are all reported to the <rea of $nternal Revene =<$R> as
income by a self-employed individal or professional with a ten =.-> percent creditable withholding
ta!% $ also remit monthly for professionals%
)he petitioner cannot also rely on the letter written by respondent Renato :ergel de 5ios to prove
that "anlife e!ercised control over him% As we already e!plained in the assailed Resoltion;
3Even de 5ios# letter is not determinative of control as it indicates the least amont of intrsion into
)ongko#s e!ercise of his role as manager in giding the sales agents% (trictly viewed, de 5ios#
directives are merely operational gidelines on how )ongko cold align his operations with
"anlife#s re-directed goal of being a 3big leage player%4 )he method is to e!pand coverage
throgh the se of more agents% )his re'irement for the recritment of more agents is not a
means-and-method control as it relates, more than anything else, and is directly relevant, to
"anlife#s ob2ective of e!panded bsiness operations throgh the se of a bigger sales force
whose members are all on a principal-agent relationship% An important point to note here is that
)ongko was not spervising reglar fll-time employees of "anlife engaged in the rnning of the
insrance bsiness; )ongko was effectively giding his corps of sales agents, who are bond to
"anlife throgh the same agreement that he had with manlife, all the while sharing in these
agents# commissions throgh his overrides%4+.
Lastly, in assailing the Agreement between him and "anlife, the petitioner cites 7agio v% @ational
Labor Relations Commission++ on the claim that the agreement that the parties signed did not
conclsively indicate the legal relationship between them%
)he evidentiary sitation in the present case, however, shows that despite the petitioner#s
insistence that the Agreement was no longer binding between him and "anlife, no evidence was
ever addced to show that their relationship changed so that "anlife at some point controlled the
means and method of the petitioner#s work% $n fact, his evidence only frther spports the
conclsion that he remained an independent insrance agenta stats he admits, sb2ect only to
the 'alification that he is at the same time an employee% )hs, we can only conclde that the
Agreement governed his relations with "anlife%
Additionally, it is not lost on s that 7agio is a rling based on a different factal setting; it involves
a pblishing firm and an accont e!ective, whose repeated engagement was considered as an
indication of employment% 9r rling in the present case is specific to the insrance indstry, where
the law permits an insrance company to e!ercise control over its agents within the limits
prescribed by law, and to engage independent agents for several transactions and within an
nlimited period of time withot the relationship amonting to employment% $n light of these
realities, the petitioner#s argments on his last argment mst also fail%
)he dissent also erroneosly cites eight other cases(ocial (ecrity (ystem v% Cort of
Appeals,+F Cosmopolitan ?neral 8omes, $nc% v% "aalat,+B Algon Engineering Constrction
Corporation v% @ational Labor Relations Commission,+E E'itable <anking Corporation v% @ational
Labor Relations Commission,+A La/aro v% (ocial (ecrity Commission,+1 5ealco ?arms, $nc% v%
@ational Labor Relations Commission,+0 (oth 5avao 5evelopment Company, $nc% v% 6amo,+,
and Abante, *r% v% Lamadrid <earing H 7arts Corporation%F- )he dissent cited these cases to
spport its allegation that labor laws and 2risprdence shold be applied in cases, to the e!clsion
of other laws sch as the Civil Code or the $nsrance Code, even when the latter are also
applicable%
$n (ocial (ecrity (ystem, Cosmopolitan ?neral 8omes, 5ealco ?arms, and (oth 5avao
5evelopment, the isse that repeats itself is whether complainants were employees or independent
contractors; the legal relationships involved are both labor law concepts and make no reference to
the Civil Code =or even the $nsrance Code>% )he provisions cited in the 5issentArticles .BE0-
.AF1 of the Civil CodeF. and Articles .1.F-.1+- of the Civil CodeF+do not even appear in the
decisions cited%
$n Algon, the isse was whether the lease contract shold dictate the legal relationship between the
parties, when there was proof of an employer-employee relationship% $n the cited case, the lease
provisions on termination were ths considered irrelevant becase of a sbstantial evidence of an
employment relationship% )he cited case lacks the comple!ity of the present case; Civil Code
provisions on lease do not prescribe that lessees e!ercise control over their lessors in the way that
the $nsrance Code and the Civil provide that insrance companies and principals e!ercised
control over their agents%
)he isse in E'itable, on the other hand, is whether a lawyer-client relationship or an employment
relationship governs the legal relation between parties% Again, this case is inapplicable as it does
not illstrate the predominance of labor laws and 2risprdence over other laws, in general, and the
$nsrance Code and Civil Code, in particlar% $t merely weighed the evidence in favor of an
employment relationship over that of a lawyer-client relationship% (imilarly in La/aro, the Cort
fond ample proof of control determinative of an employer-employee relationship% <oth cases are
not applicable to the present case, which is attended by totally different factal considerations as
the petitioner had not offered any evidence of the company#s control in the means and manner of
the performance of his work%
9n the other hand, we find it strange that the dissent cites Abante as a precedent, since the Cort,
in this case, held that an employee-employer relationship is notably absent in this case as the
complainant was a sales agent% )his case better spports the ma2ority#s position that a sales agent,
who fails to show control in the concept of labor law, cannot be considered an employee, even if
the company e!ercised control in the concept of a sales agent%FF
$t bears stressing that or rling in this case is not abot which law has primacy over the other, bt
that we shold be able to reconcile these laws% &e are merely saying that where the law makes it
mandatory for a company to e!ercise control over its agents, the complainant in an illegal dismissal
case cannot rely on these legally prescribed control devices as indicators of an employer-employee
relationship% As shown in or discssion, or consideration of the $nsrance Code and Civil Code
provisions does not negate the application of labor laws and 2risprdence; ltimately, we
dismissed the petition becase of its failre to comply with the control test%
6 | To n g k o
&8ERE?9RE, premises considered, we hereby 5E@O the "otion for Reconsideration &$)8
?$@AL$)O for lack of merit% @o frther pleadings shall be entertained% Let entry of 2dgment
proceed in de corse%
(9 9R5ERE5%
Corona =C%*%>, Carpio, 7eralta, 5el Castillo, Abad,
:illarama, *r%, 7ere/ and "endo/a, **%, concr%
Carpio-"orales, *%, $ maintain my original veto, hence, $ dissent%
:elasco, *r%, *%, $ dissent% =7ls% see 5issenting 9pinion>
@achra, *%, $ 2oin *% :elasco#s 5issent%
Leonardo-5e Castro and <ersamin, **%, *oins the dissent of *stice :elasco%
(ereno, *%, @o 7art%

5$((E@)$@6 97$@$9@
:ELA(C9, *R%, *%;
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital% Capital is only the frit of labor, and cold never have
e!isted if Labor had not first e!isted% Labor is sperior to capital, and deserves mch the higher
consideration%
PPAbraham Lincoln
7refatory (tatement
At the otset, it has to be made clear that the instant petition applies solely to petitioner )ongko
with respect to his relationship with "anlife as the latter#s Regional "anager of "etro @orth
Region and not to ordinary nderwriters of different insrance companies claiming to be totaling
BE,--- in the 7hilippines% $n view of the facts and circmstances pecliar only to )ongko#s case,
the disposition in the instant petition is pro hac vice in line with the previos rlings of this Cort
that the determination of an employer-employee relationship shall be on a case-to-case basis%.
)here is, therefore, no reason to conclde that the @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision of this Cort was
meant to indiscriminately classify all insrance agents as employees of their respective insrance
companies% @owhere in the 5ecision was sch a conclsion made or esposed% )o reiterate, it was
specifically stated in the 5ecision that )ongko, given his administrative dties as a manager of
"anlife, and not any other insrance agent in the 7hilippines, was an employee% As in every case
involving the determination of whether or not an employer-employee relationship obtains, it mst
be established in each case that the alleged employer e!ercises control over the means and
methods employed by the worker in achieving a set ob2ective% 9nly then can sch relationship be
said to e!ist%
$n a Letter dated 5ecember .A, +--0, the *oint ?oreign Chambers of the 7hilippines implored this
Cort to reverse its @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision on the stated grond that it is 3a case of 2dicial
legislation that impairs the obligations of commercial contracts and interferes with established
bsiness models and practices%4 )he Chambers conclsion, sad to state, was based on the
erroneos premise that the 5ecision was a blanket declaration that all agents or nderwriters are
considered employees of the insrance company%
)he 7hilippine Life $nsrance Association, $nc%, throgh its then 7resident 6regorio 5% "ercado,
also wrote a letter dated *anary .+, +--, reiterating the concerns of the *oint ?oreign Chambers
of the 7hilippines% $n the letter, "ercado states;
3)hs, with the recent 5ecision of the 8onorable (preme Cort, generali/ing the code of condct
as an indication of control over the means and method of an employee, 7L$A is alarmed that the
floodgates wold open to nscrplos claimants and leave 7L$A#s member companies vlnerable
to a mltitde of law sits from agents who shall insist on benefits that only employees en2oy% (ch
a scenario wold certainly cripple 7L$A#s member insrance companies, as their time and
resorces wold be devoted to fending off nscrplos claims instead of focsing on improving
themselves to serve the interests of the pblic%4
"ercado goes on to imply that the finality of the @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision wold spell the end of
the insrance indstry%
)he grim scenario depicted in "ercado#s letter and the nmistakable veiled threats implied therein
are ncalled for%
)he @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision, to reiterate, applies only to )ongko in light of the circmstances
attendant in his case% Certainly, his sitation is ni'e from most other agents considering that he
was promoted initially to Gnit "anager, then to <ranch "anager and, eventally, Regional
"anager% <y this fact alone, the 5ecision cannot be applicable to all other agents in the
7hilippines% ?rthermore, the 5ecision was reached considering the totality of all relevant matters
nderpinning andMor governing the professional relationship of )ongko and "anlife, not only the
Code of Condct, or certain dties only% All the factors mentioned in the 5ecision contribted to the
conclsion that at the time that )ongko was dismissed, he was an employee of "anlife% And it will
only be in the far off possibility that a completely identical case is presented that the findings
therein wold apply%
Additionally, in line with the Cort#s rling in the @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision that )ongko became
an employee after his designation as a manager of "anlife, any backwages for illegal dismissal
shold only correspond to his income, bonses and other benefits that were apprtenant to his
designation as a manager% Gnder )ongko#s Career Agent#s Agreement, he was entitled to
commissions, prodction bons and persistency income% )hs, the basis for backwages wold only
be his management overrides and other bonses relative to his position as manager%
)he Case
7 | To n g k o
?or the consideration of the Cort is the "otion for Reconsideration dated *ly +0, +-.-, filed by
petitioner 6regorio :% )ongko% )ongko seeks the reversal of or *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion which
dismissed the instant petition finding that )ongko was not an employee of "anfactrers Life
$nsrance Co% =7hils%>, $nc% ="anlife>% )he Resoltion reversed the Cort#s @ovember .1, +--0
5ecision%
)he ?acts
?or clarity, the facts of the case are hereby reiterated;
"anfactrers Life $nsrance Co% =7hils%>, $nc% ="anlife> is a domestic corporation engaged in life
insrance bsiness% Renato A% :ergel 5e 5ios =5e 5ios> was, dring the period material, its
7resident and Chief E!ective 9fficer% 6regorio :% )ongko started his professional relationship with
"anlife on *ly ., .,11 by virte of a Career Agent#s Agreement+ =Agreement> he e!ected with
"anlife%
$n the Agreement, it is provided that;
3$t is nderstood and agreed that the Agent is an independent contractor and nothing contained
herein shall be constred or interpreted as creating an employer-employee relationship between
the Company and the Agent%
! ! ! !
a> )he Agent shall canvass for applications for Life $nsrance, Annities, 6rop policies and
other prodcts offered by the Company, and collect, in e!change for provisional receipts issed by
the Agent, money de or to become de to the Company in respect of applications or policies
obtained by or throgh the Agent or from policyholders allotted by the Company to the Agent for
servicing, sb2ect to sbse'ent confirmation of receipt of payment by the Company as evidenced
by an 9fficial Receipt issed by the Company directly to the policyholder%
! ! ! !
.B% )ER"$@A)$9@
)he Company may terminate this Agreement for any breach or violation of any of the provisions
hereof by the Agent by giving written notice to the Agent within fifteen =.E> days from the time of the
discovery of the breach% @o waiver, e!tingishment, abandonment, withdrawal or cancellation of
the right to terminate this Agreement by the Company shall be constred for any previos failre to
e!ercise its right nder any provision of this Agreement%
Either of the parties hereto may likewise terminate his Agreement at any time withot case, by
giving to the other party fifteen =.E> days notice in writing% )his Agreement shall similarly terminate
forthwith pon the death of the Agent%
$n cases of termination, inclding the Agent#s death, the Agent andMor his estate, e!ectors or
administrators, heirs, assignees or sccessors-in-interest, as the case may be, shall remain liable
to the Company for all the Agent#s obligations and indebtedness de the Company arising from law
or this Agreement%4
$n .,0F, )ongko was named as a Gnit "anager in "anlife#s (ales Agency 9rgani/ation% $n .,,-,
he became a <ranch "anager% 8e was thereafter promoted to Regional "anager% As the Cort of
Appeals =CA> fond, )ongko#s gross earnings from his work at "anlife as a Regional "anager,
consisting of commissions, persistency income, and management overrides, may be smmari/ed
as follows;
*anary to 5ecember .-, +--+ - 7 0AE,-,A%-1
+--. - A,+.B,1F1%..
+--- - 0,--F,.0-%F0
.,,, - A,1,1,0.B%-E
.,,0 - B,0-E,.AA%FB
.,,1 - +,0++,A+-%--F
)he problem started sometime in +--., when "anlife institted manpower development programs
in the regional sales management level% Relative thereto, 5e 5ios addressed a letter dated
@ovember A, +--.B to )ongko regarding an 9ctober .0, +--. "etro @orth (ales "anagers
"eeting% $n the letter, 5e 5ios stated;
3)he first step to transforming "anlife into a big leage player has been very clearto increase
the nmber of agents to at least .,--- strong for a start% )his may seem diametrically opposed to
the way "anlife was rn when yo first 2oined the organi/ation% (ince then, however, sbstantial
changes have taken place in the organi/ation, as these have been inflenced by developments
both from within and withot the company%
! ! ! !
)he isses arond agent recriting are central to the intended ob2ectives hence the need for a
(enior "anagers# meeting earlier last month when Jevin 9#Connor, (:7-Agency, took to the floor
to determine from or senior agency leaders what more cold be done to bolster manpower
development% At earlier meetings, Jevin had presented information where evidently, yor Region
was the lowest performer =on a per "anager basis> in terms of recriting in +--- and, as of today,
contines to remain one of the laggards in this area%
&hile discssions, in general, were positive other than for certain comments from yor end which
were perceived to be ncalled for, it became clear that a one-on-one meeting with yo was
necessary to ensre that yo and management, were on the same plane% As gleaned from some of
yor previos comments in prior meetings =both in grop and one-on-one>, it was not clear that we
were proceeding in the same direction%
8 | To n g k o
Jevin held sbse'ent series of meetings with yo as a reslt, one of which $ 2oined briefly% $n
those sbse'ent meetings yo reiterated certain views, the validity of which we challenged and
sbse'ently fond as having no basis%
&ith sch views coming from yo, $ was a bit concerned that the rest of the "etro @orth "anagers
may be a bit confsed as to the directions the company was taking% ?or this reason, $ soght a
meeting with everyone in yor management team, inclding yo, to clear the air, so to speak%
)his note is intended to confirm the items that were discssed at the said "etro @orth Region#s
(ales "anagers meeting held at the 1M? Conference room last .0 9ctober%
! ! ! !
All of a sdden, 6reg, $ have become mch more worried abot yor ability to lead this grop
towards the new direction that we have been discssing these past few weeks, i%e%, "anlife#s goal
to become a ma2or agency-led distribtion company in the 7hilippines% &hile as yo claim, yo
have not stopped anyone from recriting, $ have never heard yo proactively psh for greater
agency recriting% Oo have not been proactive all these years when it comes to agency growth%
! ! ! !
$ cannot afford to see a ma2or region fail to deliver on its developmental goals ne!t year and so, we
are making the following changes in the interim;
.% Oo will hire at yor e!pense a competent assistant who can nload yo of mch of the rotine
tasks which can be easily delegated% )his assistant shold be so chosen as to complement yor
skills and help yo in the areas where yo feel Qmay not be yor cp of tea4%
Oo have stated, if not implied, that yor work as Regional "anager may be too ta!ing for yo and
for yor health% )he above cold solve this problem%
! ! ! !
+% Effective immediately, Jevin and the rest of the Agency 9perations will deal with the @orth
(tar <ranch =@(<> in atonomos fashion% ! ! !
$ have decided to make this change so as to redce yor span of control and allow yo to
concentrate more flly on overseeing the remaining grops nder "etro @orth, yor Central Gnit
and the rest of the (ales "anagers in "etro @orth% $ will hold yo solely responsible for meeting
the ob2ectives of these remaining grops%
! ! ! !
)he above changes can end at this point and they need not go any frther% )his, however, is
entirely dependent pon yo% <t yo have to nderstand that meeting corporate ob2ectives by
everyone is primary and will not be compromised% &e are meeting togh challenges ne!t year and
$ wold want everybody on board% Any resistance or holding back by anyone will be dealt with
accordingly%4
(bse'ently, 5e 5ios wrote )ongko another letter dated 5ecember .0, +--.,E terminating
)ongko#s services, ths;
3$t wold appear, however, that despite the series of meetings and commnications, both one-on-
one meetings between yorself and (:7 Jevin 9#Connor, some of them with me, as well as grop
meetings with yor (ales "anagers, all these efforts have failed in helping yo align yor
directions with "anagement#s avowed agency growth policy%
! ! ! !
9n accont thereof, "anagement is e!ercising its prerogative nder (ection .B of yor Agents
Contract as we are now issing this notice of termination of yor Agency Agreement with s
effective fifteen days from the date of this letter%4
)herefrom, )ongko filed a Complaint dated @ovember +E, +--+ with the @ational Labor Relations
Commission =@LRC> against "anlife for illegal dismissal% )he case, docketed as @LRC @CR
Case @o% ..-.-FF---+, was raffled to Labor Arbiter "arita :% 7adolina%
$n the Complaint, )ongko, in a bid to establish an employer-employee relationship, alleged that 5e
5ios gave him specific directives on how to manage his area of responsibility in the latter#s letter
dated @ovember A, +--.% 8e frther claimed that "anlife e!ercised control over him as follows;
3(ch control was certainly e!ercised by respondents over the herein complainant% $t was "anlife
who hired, promoted and gave varios assignments to him% $t was the company who set ob2ectives
as regards prodctions, recritment, training programs and all activities pertaining to its bsiness%
"anlife prescribed a Code of Condct which wold govern in minte detail all aspects of the work
to be ndertaken by employees, inclding the sales process, the nderwriting process, signatres,
handling of money, policyholder service, confidentiality, legal and reglatory re'irements and
gronds for termination of employment% )he letter of "r% 5e 5ios dated -A @ovember +--. left no
dobt as to who was in control% )he sbse'ent termination letter dated .0 5ecember +--. again
established in no ncertain terms the athority of the herein respondents to control the employees
of "anlife% 7lainly, the respondents wielded control not only as to the ends to be achieved bt the
ways and means of attaining sch ends%4A
)ongko bolstered his argment by citing $nslar Life Assrance Co%, Ltd% v% @LRC =Bth 5ivision>1
and 6reat 7acific Life Assrance Corporation v% @LRC,0 which )ongko claimed to be similar to the
instant case%
)ongko frther claimed that his dismissal was withot basis and that he was not afforded de
process% 8e also cited the "anlife Code of Condct by which his actions were controlled by the
company%
"anlife then filed a 7osition 7aper with "otion to 5ismiss dated ?ebrary +1, +--F,, in which it
alleged that )ongko is not its employee, and that it did not e!ercise 3control4 over him% )hs,
"anlife claimed that the @LRC has no 2risdiction over the case%
$n a 5ecision dated April .E, +--B, Labor Arbiter "arita :% 7adolina dismissed the complaint for
lack of an employer-employee relationship% 7adolina fond that applying the for-fold test in
9 | To n g k o
determining the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship, none was fond in the instant
case% )he dispositive portion thereof states;
3&8ERE?9RE, premises considered, 2dgment is hereby rendered 5$("$(($@6 the instant
complaint for lack of 2risdiction, there being no employer-employee relationship between the
parties%
(9 9R5ERE5%4
)ongko appealed the arbiter#s 5ecision to the @LRC which reversed the same and rendered a
5ecision dated (eptember +1, +--B finding )ongko to have been illegally dismissed%
)he @LRC#s ?irst 5ivision, while finding an employer-employee relationship between "anlife and
)ongko applying the for-fold test, held "anlife liable for illegal dismissal% $t frther stated that
"anlife e!ercised control over )ongko as evidenced by the letter dated @ovember A, +--. of 5e
5ios and wrote;
3)he above-mentioned letter shows the e!tent to which respondents controlled complainant#s
manner and means of doing his work and achieving the goals set by respondents% )he letter shows
how respondents concerned themselves with the manner complainant managed the "etro @orth
Region as Regional (ales "anager, to the point that respondents even had a say on how
complainant interacted with other individals in the "etro @orth Region% )he letter is in fact replete
with comments and criticisms on how complainant carried ot his fnctions as Regional (ales
"anager%
"ore importantly, the letter contains an abndance of directives or orders that are intended to
directly affect complainant#s athority and manner of carrying ot his fnctions as Regional (ales
"anager%4.-
Additionally, the @LRC also rled that;
3?rther evidence of Krespondents#L control over complainant can be fond in the records of the
case% K)heseL are the different codes of condct sch as the Agent Code of Condct, the "anlife
?inancial Code of Condct, and the "anlife ?inancial Code of Condct Agreement, which serve
as the fondations of the power of control wielded by respondents over complainant that is frther
manifested in the different administrative and other tasks that he is re'ired to perform% )hese
codes of condct corroborate and reinforce the display of respondents# power of control in their -A
@ovember +--. Letter to complainant%4..
)he fallo of the (eptember +1, +--B @LRC 5ecision reads;
3&8ERE?9RE, premises considered, the appealed 5ecision is hereby reversed and set aside%
&e find complainant to be a reglar employee of respondent "anlife and that he was illegally
dismissed from employment by respondents%
$n lie of reinstatement, respondent "anlife is hereby ordered to pay complainant separation pay
as above set forth% Respondent "anlife is frther ordered to pay complainant backwages from the
time he was dismissed on -+ *anary +--+ p to the finality of this decision also as indicated
above%
! ! ! !
All other claims are hereby dismissed for tter lack of merit%4
?rom this 5ecision, "anlife filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the @LRC ?irst
5ivision in a Resoltion dated 5ecember .A, +--B%.+
)hs, "anlife filed an appeal with the CA docketed as CA-6%R% (7 @o% 00+EF% )hereafter, the CA
issed the assailed 5ecision dated "arch +,, +--E, finding the absence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties and deeming the @LRC with no 2risdiction over the case% )he CA
arrived at this conclsion while again applying the for-fold test% )he CA fond that "anlife did not
e!ercise control over )ongko that wold render the latter an employee of "anlife% )he dispositive
portion reads;
3&8ERE?9RE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby 6RA@)E5 and the writ
prayed for accordingly 6RA@)E5% )he assailed 5ecision dated (eptember +1, +--B and
Resoltion dated 5ecember .A, +--B of the @ational Labor Relations Commission in @LRC @CR
Case @o% ---..-.-FF--+--+ =@LRC @CR CA @o% -B-++---B> are hereby A@@GLLE5 and (E)
A($5E% )he 5ecision dated April .E, +--B of Labor Arbiter "arita :% 7adolina is hereby
RE$@()A)E5%4
8ence, )ongko filed a petition with this Cort raising the following isses; =.> whether )ongko was
an employee of "anlife; and =+> whether )ongko was illegally dismissed%
$n the @ovember .1, +-.- 5ecision, this Cort rled that )ongko was an employee of "anlife and
was illegally dismissed% Applying the for-fold test, the Cort fond sfficient indicia of employment
to conclde that "anlife and )ongko had an employer-employee relationship% )hs, the Cort
frther rled that becase there was no 2st or valid case for the termination of )ongko#s
employment, he was therefore illegally dismissed%
"anlife appealed sch 5ecision to the Cort en banc which reversed the same in a *ne +,,
+-.- Resoltion% $n the Resoltion, the Cort sed the intent of the parties as well as the
established insrance indstry practices to conclde that the control re'ired by the labor code to
be present to establish an employer-employee relationship between "anlife and )ongko was not
present% $t was frther rled that there was no other concrete evidence to establish that )ongko
was an employee of "anlife%
)hereafter, )ongko filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Resoltion%
)he motion for reconsideration mst be granted%
Labor laws, not the $nsrance Code
or the Corporation Code, shall prevail in the instant case
"anfactrers Life $nsrance Co% =7hils%>, $nc% is part of a Canada-based mltinational financial
company claiming to be the largest life insrance company in @orth America having F,---
employees and +E,--- agents%.F 9n the other hand, )ongko is bt a single ?ilipino agentMmanager
of "anlife% $t is bt 2st, it is bt right, that the Cort, interpret the relationship between )ongko and
10 | To n g k o
"anlife as one of employment nder labor laws and to phold his constittionally protected rights
as an employee, to secrity of tenre and an entitlement to monetary award shold sch right is
infringed% And this constittionally-garanteed right cannot be diminished, let alone ndermined, by
a mere contract, or however the parties choose to call their tre working relationship%.B @either, to
stress, may the employer-employee relationship, if one e!ists, be sbverted by the manner and
form of remneration or earnings being paid or received,.E i%e%, fi!ed or on commission basis, or
the method of calclating the same%
)he controversy in this case arose from the fact that, initially, )ongko e!ected a Career Agent#s
Agreement whereby he became an agent of "anlife% As sch agent, "anlife did not control the
means and methods for accomplishing his assigned ob2ective of canvassing life insrance
applications% $t is, therefore sbmitted that when he was e!clsively an agent of "anlife, he was
not the latter#s employee%
)he evidence, however, will reveal that he was later on promoted to the positions of nit, branch
and regional manager% )he evidence will also show that he, similar to his colleages, was assigned
other dties and responsibilities aside from those enmerated nder the Agreement%
And there lies the cr! of the problem% )here is now an ambigity as to the tre relationship
between "anlife and )ongko% "oreover, it is now nclear as to what law, labor laws, corporation
code, insrance code or civil code, shold be applied to the two parties%
*risprdence teaches that, given the dobt as to the applicable law in the instant case, labor law
shall govern%
)he Constittion acknowledges the reality that capital and labor often do not deal on e'al
gronds, re'iring the state to protect labor from abse% )o level the playing field, the framers of
the Constittion incorporated two =+> provisions therein to safegard the employee#s right to
secrity of tenre and enhance protection to employees# rights and welfare;
AR)$CLE $$
5ECLARA)$9@ 9? 7R$@C$7LE( A@5 ()A)E 79L$C$E( 7R$@C$7LE(
()A)E 79L$C$E(
(ection .0% )he (tate affirms labor as a primary social economic force% $t shall protect the rights
of workers and promote their welfare%
AR)$CLE R$$$
(9C$AL *G()$CE A@5 8G"A@ R$68)(
LA<9R
(ection F% )he (tate shall afford fll protection to labor, local and overseas, organi/ed and
norgani/ed, and promote fll employment and e'ality of employment opportnities for all%
$t shall garantee the rights of all workers to self-organi/ation, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peacefl concerted activities, inclding the right to strike in accordance with law%
)hey shall be entitled to secrity of tenre, hmane conditions of work, and a living wage% )hey
shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
$n the Civil Code, it is provided in Articles .1-- and .1-+ thereof that;
3Art% .1--% )he relations between capital and labor are not merely contractal% )hey are so
impressed with pblic interest that labor contracts mst yield to the common good% )herefore, sch
contracts are sb2ect to the special laws on labor nions, collective bargaining, strikes and
lockots, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hors of labor and similar sb2ects%
Article .1-+% $n case of dobt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be constred in
favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
:erily, the mandate of this Cort is to ensre that the provisions of the Constittion are carried ot%
)he Cort has the responsibility to ensre that the rights of labor, as garanteed by the
Constittion, are actally en2oyed by the workers% )hs, in several cases, the Cort has repeatedly
resolved dobts as to the relationship between parties as that of employment, that which is most
favorable to labor%
)he Cort, in a slew of cases, has consistently rled that when there is dobt as to the law to be
applied in a case with an allegation of an employer-employee relationship, labor laws and
2risprdence shall apply% Consider;
.% $n (ocial (ecrity (ystem v% Cort of Appeals,.A the Cort was faced with the conflicting
claims of the workers and the proprietor on the isse of whether an employer-employee
relationship e!ists% Romeo Carreon and Sality )obacco Corporation =S)C> entered into an
agreement whereby Carreon wold allegedly prchase and sell S)C#s prodcts% Carreon claims
that he was an employee of S)C while S)C claims that Carreon is an independent contractor% $n
the agreement, Carreon was referred to as a vendee of S)C#s prodcts% )heir relationship wold
therefore be covered by the Civil Code provisions on sales%.1 8owever, in view of the complaint of
Carreon praying for ((( benefits on the claim that he is an employee of S)C, there arose the
'estion as to which law shold applythe Civil Code or the Labor Code and 2risprdence% )he
Cort applied the 2risprdence in labor cases and sed the for-fold test to determine the
e!istence of an employer-employee relationship% )he Cort stated;
3)he isse raised by the petitioner before this Cort is the very same isse resolved by the Cort of
Appeals-that is, whether or not Romeo Carreon is an employee or an independent contractor nder
the contract afore'oted% Corollary thereto the 'estion as to whether or not the "afinco case is
applicable to this case was raised by the parties%
)he Cort took cogni/ance of the fact that the 'estion of whether or not an employer-employee
relationship e!ists in a certain sitation contines to bedevil the corts% (ome bsinessmen with
the aid of lawyers have tried to avoid the bringing abot of an employer-employee relationship in
11 | To n g k o
some of their enterprises becase that 2ridical relation spawns obligations connected with
workmen#s compensation, social secrity, medicare, minimm wage, termination pay and
nionism%
?or this reason, in order to pt the isse at rest, this Cort has laid down in a formidable line of
decisions the elements to be generally considered in determining the e!istence of an employer-
employee relationship, as follows; a> selection and engagement of the employee; b> the payment of
wages; c> the power of dismissal; and d> the employer#s power to control the employee with
respect to the means and method by-which the work is to be accomplished% )he last which is the
so-called 3control test4 is the most important element =<rotherhood Labor Gnity "ovement of the
7hils% vs% Tamora, .B1 (CRA B, K.,01L; 5y Je <eng vs% $nternational Labor and "arine Gnion of
the 7hil%, ,- (CRA .A+ K.,1,L; "afinco )rading Corp% vs% 9ple, 1- (CRA .B. K.,1AL; (ocial
(ecrity (ystem vs% Cort of Appeals, F1 (CRA E1, K.,1.L>%
Applying the control test, that is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control
the employee not only as to the reslt of the work to be done bt also as to the means and method
by which the same is to be accomplished, the 'estion of whether or not there is an employer-
employee relationship for prposes of the (ocial (ecrity Act has been settled in this 2risdiction in
the case of $nvestment 7lanning Corp% vs% (((, +. (CRA ,+B =.,A1>% $n other words, where the
element of control is absent; where a person who works for another does so more or less at his
own pleasre and is not sb2ect to definite hors or conditions of work, and in trn is compensated
according to the reslt of his effort, the relationship of employer-employee does not e!ist% =((( vs%
Cort of Appeals, F- (CRA +.- K.,A,L>% =Emphasis spplied%>
+% $n Cosmopolitan ?neral 8omes, $nc% v% "aalat,.0 Cosmopolitan ?neral 8omes, $nc% engaged
the services of @oli "aalat as a 3spervisor4 to handle the solicitation of mortary arrangements,
sales and collections% "aalat was dimissed after having committed violations of the company#s
policies% 8e filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of commissions% Cosmopolitan
arges that there is no employer-employee relationship between it and "aalat, the latter being an
independent contractor% )he Cort rled that;
3$n determining whether a person who performs work for another is the latterUs employee or an
independent contractor, the prevailing test is the 3right of control4 test% Gnder this test, an employer-
employee relationship e!ists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the
right to control not only the end to be achieved, bt also the manner and means to be sed in
reaching that end%4
)he Cort did not consider the provisions of the Civil Code on a Contract for a 7iece of &ork., in
determining the relationship between the parties% $nstead, it sed the labor law concept, the control
test, to determine sch relationship%
F% )he Cort in Algon Engineering Constrction Corporation v% @ational Labor Relations
Commission+- did not consider the Civil Code provisions on lease when it rled pon the
e!istence of an employer-employee relationship% $n that case, from "arch ., .,0F to "ay .-, .,0E,
Algon was in the process of completing the Lcena )alacogon 7ro2ect in 5el "onte, )alacogon,
Agsan del (r% *ose Espinosa#s hose is located near that pro2ect site% )hs, throghot that
same period of time, Espinosa allowed petitioner Algon to se his hose and the gronds ad2acent
thereto as a parking and storage place for the latter#s heavy e'ipment% 8owever, Espinosa also
claims in addition thereto that there e!isted an employment contract between himself and petitioner
Algon which, he insisted, hired him as a watchman to gard the heavy e'ipment parked in other
leased hose spaces in Libtong, )alacogon, Agsan del (r% )he Cort rled therein that;
3@o particlar evidence is re'ired to prove the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship% All
that is necessary is to show that the employer is capable of e!ercising control over the employee%
$n labor disptes, it sffices that there be a casal connection between the claim asserted and the
employer-employee relations%
)he elements of an employer-employee relationship are; =.> selection and engagement of the
employee; =+> payment of wages; =F> power of dismissal; and =B> employer#s own power to control
employee#s condct% Control of the employee#s condct is commonly regarded as the most crcial
and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship% $n
the case at bar, there is no dobt that petitioner e!ercises control over Espinosa#s condct, as
shown by the fact that, rather than address the loss of batteries as a breach of the prported
contract of lease, the memorandm instead emphasi/ed the company rles and reglations and
the fact that Espinosa was 3on dty4 at the time of the said loss% "oreover, the petitioner#s act of
transferring Espinosa to the day shift clearly shows its treatment of Espinosa as an employee, and
not as a landlord% )hs, an employer-employee relationship e!ists where the person for whom the
services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved bt also the
means to be sed in reaching sch an end%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
B% Even when faced with the contention that the relationship between two parties was in the
natre of a lawyer-client relationship, the Cort, in E'itable <anking Corporation v% @ational Labor
Relations Commission,+. still employed the control test, a strictly labor law concept, to determine
the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship% )here, Ricardo L% (adac was engaged in
.,0. as E'itable#s :ice-7resident for the legal department and as its 6eneral Consel% $n .,0,,
nine =,> lawyers of the legal department issed a letter-petition to the chairperson of the board of
the bank accsing private respondent of absive condct, inefficiency, mismanagement,
ineffectiveness and indecisiveness% Later, the lawyers threatened to resign en masse if (adac was
not relieved as the head of the legal department% After a formal investigation of the charges, (adac
was advised that he wold be sbstitted as the bank#s legal consel% (adac charged the bank
with illegal dismissal% )he bank in trn denied the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship
between it and (adac% )he Cort stated in its 5ecision that;
3$n determining the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are
considered; =.> the selection and engagement of the employee; =+> the payment of wages; =F> the
power of dismissal, and =B> the power to control the employeeUs condct, with the control test
generally assming primacy in the overall consideration% )he power of control refers to the
e!istence of the power and not necessarily to the actal e!ercise thereof% $t is not essential, in
other words, for the employer to actally spervise the performance of dties of the employee; it is
enogh that the former has the right to wield the power%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
E% $n La/aro v% (ocial (ecrity Commission,++ Rosalina "% Ladato was a sales spervisor of
Royal (tar "arketing, the proprietor of which was Angelito L% La/aro% Ladato claimed that the
company failed to report her and remit her contribtions as an employee, to the (ocial (ecrity
(ystem =(((>% 5enying that Ladato was a sales spervisor of Royal (tar "arketing, La/aro
claimed that the former was only a sales agent earning on a commission basis% 8e added that
Ladato did not maintain definite hors of work and therefore cold not be considered as an
employee of Royal (tar "arketing% )he Cort, in determining the tre relationship of the parties,
12 | To n g k o
did not apply the provisions of the Civil Code on agency% Rather, the labor law concept of the
control test was applied to determine the relationship of the parties% )he Cort rled therein that;
3La/aro#s argments may be dispensed with by applying precedents% (ffice it to say, the fact that
Ladato was paid by way of commission does not preclde the establishment of an employer-
employee relationship% $n 6repalife v% *dico, the Cort pheld the e!istence of an employer-
employee relationship between the insrance company and its agents, despite the fact that the
compensation that the agents on commission received was not paid by the company bt by the
investor or the person insred% )he relevant factor remains, as stated earlier, whether the
3employer4 controls or has reserved the right to control the 3employee4 not only as to the reslt of
the work to be done bt also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be
accomplished%
@either does it follow that a person who does not observe normal hors of work cannot be deemed
an employee% $n Cosmopolitan ?neral 8omes, $nc% v% "aalat, the employer similarly denied the
e!istence of an employer-employee relationship, as the claimant according to it, was a 3spervisor
on commission basis4 who did not observe normal hors of work% )his Cort declared that there
was an employer-employee relationship, noting that 3KtheL spervisor, althogh compensated on
commission basis, KisL e!empt from the observance of normal hors of work for his compensation
is measred by the nmber of sales he makes%4
$t shold also be emphasi/ed that the ((C, also as pheld by the Cort of Appeals, fond that
Ladato was a sales spervisor and not a mere agent% As sch, Ladato oversaw and spervised
the sales agents of the company, and ths was sb2ect to the control of management as to how
she implements its policies and its end reslts% ! ! !4 =Emphasis spplied%>
A% &hile in 5ealco ?arms, $nc% v% @ational Labor Relations Commission =Eth 5ivision>,+F the
Cort declared the workers as employees of 5ealco farms and not independent contractors% )here,
Albert Caban and Chi'ito <astida were hired by 5ealco as escorts or 3comboys4 for the transit of
live cattle from 6eneral (antos City to "anila in .,,F% (ometime .,,,, Caban and <astida were
smmarily replaced% )hs, they filed a case for illegal dismissal% 5ealco claimed that Caban and
<astida were in fact independent contractors hired by the byers of the cattle who arranged for the
transport thereof to "anila% )he Cort again did not take into consideration provisions of the Civil
Code on Contracts for a 7iece of &ork and instead sed the for-fold test to determine the tre
natre of the parties# relationship% )he Cort rled;
3Regrettably, pon an evalation of the merits of the petition, we do not find case to distrb the
findings of the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the @LRC, which are spported by sbstantial evidence%
)he well-entrenched rle is that factal findings of administrative or 'asi-2dicial bodies, which are
deemed to have ac'ired e!pertise in matters within their respective 2risdictions, are generally
accorded not only respect bt even finality, and bind the Cort when spported by sbstantial
evidence% (ection E, Rle .FF defines sbstantial evidence as 3that amont of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as ade'ate to 2stify a conclsion%4
Consistent therewith is the doctrine that this Cort is not a trier of facts, and this is strictly adhered
to in labor cases% &e may take cogni/ance of and resolve factal isses only when the findings of
fact and conclsions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the @LRC and the
CA%
$n the case at bench, both the Labor Arbiter and the @LRC were one in their conclsion that
respondents were not independent contractors, bt employees of petitioner% $n determining the
e!istence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, both the Labor Arbiter and
the @LRC e!amined and weighed the circmstances against the for-fold test which has the
following elements; =.> the power to hire, =+> the payment of wages, =F> the power to dismiss, and
=B> the power to control the employees# condct, or the so-called 3control test%4 9f the for, the
power of control is the most important element% "ore importantly, the control test merely calls for
the e!istence of the right to control, and not necessarily the e!ercise thereof%
! ! ! !
&e re2ect petitioner#s self-serving contention% 8aving failed to sbstantiate its allegation on the
relationship between the parties, we stick to the settled rle in controversies between a laborer and
his master that dobts reasonably arising from the evidence shold be resolved in the former#s
favor% )he policy is reflected in no less than the Constittion, Labor Code and Civil Code%4
=Emphasis spplied%>
1% (imilarly, in (oth 5avao 5evelopment Company, $nc% v% 6amo,+B the Cort refsed to apply
the provisions of the Civil Code on Contract for a 7iece of &ork to a copra maker contractor and
instead sed the control test to determine the worker#s relationship with the company% (oth 5avao
5evelopment Company was the operator of a cocont and mango farm in (an $sidro, 5avao
9riental and $nawayanM<aracatan, 5avao del (r% (ometime in Agst .,AF, the company hired
respondent (ergio L% 6amo =6amo> as a foreman% (ometime in .,01, 6amo was appointed as a
copra maker contractor% Ernesto <elle/a, Carlos Ro2as, "a!imo "alinao were all employees in
petitioner#s cocont farm, while respondents ?eli! )erona, :irgilio Cosep, "a!imo )olda, and
@elson <agaan were assigned to petitioner#s mango farm% All of the abovenamed respondents
=copra workers> were later transferred by petitioner to 6amo as the latter#s copraceros% )he Cort
rled in that case that the workers mst be considered as employees of the company as the latter
e!ercised control over the workers as evidenced by its power to transfer the copra workers as its
employees to that of 6amo;
3$n this case, it was in the e!ercise of its power of control when petitioner corporation transferred
the copra workers from their previos assignments to work as copraceros% $t was also in the
e!ercise of the same power that petitioner corporation pt 6amo in charge of the copra workers
althogh nder a different payment scheme% )hs, it is clear that an employer-employee
relationship has e!isted between petitioner corporation and respondents since the beginning and
sch relationship did not cease despite their reassignments and the change of payment scheme%4
=Emphasis spplied%>
0% &hile in Abante v% Lamadrid <earing H 7arts Corp%,+E despite the allegation that the worker
was a commission salesman, the Cort still sed the for-fold test to determine the e!istence of an
employer-employee relationship% )he worker, Empermaco <% Abante, *r%, was employed by
respondent company Lamadrid <earing and 7arts Corporation sometime in *ne .,0E as a
salesman earning a commission of FV of the total paid-p sales covering the whole area of
"indanao% (ometime in +--., Abante was informed by his cstomers that Lamadrid had issed a
letter informing them that Abante was no longer their salesman% )hereafter, Abante filed a case
against Lamadrid for illegal dismissal% Lamadrid, for its part, arged that Abante was not its
employee bt rather a freelance salesman on commission basis% )he Cort rled therein;
13 | To n g k o
3&e are called pon to resolve the isse of whether or not petitioner, as a commission salesman, is
an employee of respondent corporation% )o ascertain the e!istence of an employer-employee
relationship, 2risprdence has invariably applied the for-fold test, namely; =.> the manner of
selection and engagement; =+> the payment of wages; =F> the presence or absence of the power of
dismissal; and =B> the presence or absence of the power of control% 9f these for, the last one is
the most important% )he so-called 3control test4 is commonly regarded as the most crcial and
determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship% Gnder
the control test, an employer-employee relationship e!ists where the person for whom the services
are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, bt also the manner and
means to be sed in reaching that end%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
:erily, based on the above-mentioned sample of nmeros cases, the Cort has invariably applied
labor laws and doctrines, particlarly the for-fold and control test, over Civil Code provisions, to
determine the relationship of parties where an employer-employee relationship is alleged, withot
regard to the indstry or otherwise alleged relationship of the parties% )he Cort cannot now
deviate from established precedents% )he for-fold test mst be sed to determine whether )ongko
was an employee of "anlife or not, and not the $nsrance Code or Civil Code as claimed by
"anlife%
Gsing the ?or-?old )est, "anlife e!ercised control over )ongko%
As a matter of long and settled 2risprdence, the following are the elements, constitting the for-
fold test, sally considered in determining the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship; =a>
the selection of the employee; =b> the payment of wages; =c> the power of dismissal; and =d> the
power to control the employee#s condct, with the 3control test4 being the most crcial+A or
generally assming primacy in the overall consideration%+1
$n "eteoro v% Creative Creatres, $nc%,+0 the Cort stated that in the determination of the e!istence
of an employer-employee relationship, any competent and relevant evidence may be considered,
to wit;
3)o resolve the isse raised by respondent, that is, the e!istence of an employer-employee
relationship, there is need to e!amine evidentiary matters% )he following elements constitte the
reliable yardstick to determine sch relationship; =a> the selection and engagement of the
employee; =b> the payment of wages; =c> the power of dismissal; and =d> the employer#s power to
control the employee#s condct% )here is no hard and fast rle designed to establish the aforesaid
elements% Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted%
$dentification cards, cash vochers, social secrity registration, appointment letters or employment
contracts, payrolls, organi/ation charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee stats%
)hese pieces of evidence are readily available, as they are in the possession of either the
employee or the employer; and they may easily be looked into by the labor inspector =in the corse
of inspection> when confronted with the 'estion of the e!istence or absence of an employer-
employee relationship%
(ome bsinessmen, however, try to avoid an employer-employee relationship from arising in their
enterprises, becase that 2ridical relation spawns obligations connected with workmen#s
compensation, social secrity, medicare, termination pay, and nionism% )hs, in addition to the
above-mentioned docments, other pieces of evidence are considered in ascertaining the tre
natre of the parties# relationship% )his is especially tre in determining the element of 3control%4
)he most important inde! of an employer-employee relationship is the so-called 3control test,4 that
is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee, not only as to
the reslt of the work to be done, bt also as to the means and methods by which the same is to
be accomplished%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
)he @LRC, taking stock of the affidavits of petitioner#s fellow insrance managers therein detailing
their dties, had conclded that petitioner was an employee of "anlife% $ndeed, the dties,
responsibilities and ndertakings of these insrance managers are strikingly similar to those of
Ernesto and Rodrigo Ri/, as set forth in the 5ecision in 6reat 7acific Life Assrance Corporation
v% @LRC%+, )here, the Cort decreed that the brothers Ri/ were employees of 6repalife% )he
reasons behind the declaration need no belaboring% (ffice it to state that vis-C-vis the Ri/es in
6repalife, "anlife had control of the means and methods employed by the petitioner in the
performance of his work as a manager of "anlife% ?ollowing the stare decisis rle, there seems to
be no rhyme or reason to withhold from herein petitioner the benefits accring from an employer-
employee relationship%
)hs, in the Cort#s @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision, finding that )ongko was "anlife#s employee, it
was rled that;
3"ore importantly, "anlife#s evidence establishes the fact that )ongko was tasked to perform
administrative dties that establishes his employment with "anlife%
$n its Comment =Re; 7etition for Review dated .E April +--E> dated Agst E, +--E, "anlife
attached affidavits of its agents prportedly to spport its claim that )ongko, as a Regional (ales
"anager, did not perform any administrative fnctions% An e!amination of these affidavits wold,
however, prove the opposite%
$n an Affidavit dated April +0, +--F, *ohn 5% Cha, a Regional (ales "anager of "anlife, stated;
.% 9n (eptember ., .,,A, my services were engaged by "anlife as an Agency Regional
(ales "anager =R("> for "etro (oth Region prsant to an Agency Contract% As sch
R(", $ have the following fnctions
+% Refer and recommend prospective agents to "anlife
F% Coach agents to become prodctive
B% Reglarly meet with, and coordinate activities of agents affiliated to my region%
&hile Amada )oledo, a <ranch "anager of "anlife, stated in her Affidavit dated April +,, +--F
that;
.% $n *anary .,,1, $ was assigned as a <ranch "anager =<"> of "anlife for the "etro @orth
(ector;
+% As sch <", $ render the following services;
a% Refer and recommend prospective agents to "anlife;
b% )rain and coordinate activities of other commission agents;
c% Coordinate activities of Agency "anagers who, in trn, train and coordinate activities of
other commission agents;
d% Achieve agreed prodction ob2ectives in terms of @et Annali/ed Commissions and
Case Cont and recritment goals; and
14 | To n g k o
e% (ell the varios prodcts of "anlife to my personal clients%
&hile "a% Lordes (amson, a Gnit "anager of "anlife, stated in her Affidavit dated April +0, +--F
that;
1. $n .,11, $ was assigned as a Gnit "anager =G"> of @orth 7eaks Gnit, @orth (tar <ranch,
"etro @orth Region;
2. As sch G", $ render the following services;
a% )o render or recommend prospective agents to be licensed, trained and contracted to
sell "anlife prodcts and who will be part of my Gnit;
b% )o coordinate activities of the agents nder my Gnit in their daily, weekly and monthly
selling activities, making sre that their respective sales targets are met;
c% )o condct periodic training sessions for my agents to frther enhance their sales skills%
d% )o assist my agents with their sales activities by way of 2oint fieldwork, consltations and
one-on-one evalation and analysis of particlar acconts%
e% )o provide opportnities to motivate my agents to scceed like condcting promos to
increase sales activities and encoraging them to be involved in company and indstry
activities%
f% )o provide opportnities for professional growth to my agents by encoraging them to be
a member of the LGCA7 =Life Gnderwriters Association of the 7hilippines>%
A comparison of the above fnctions and those contained in the Agreement with those cited in
6reat 7acific Life Assrance Corporation reveals a striking similarity that wold more than spport
a similar finding as in that case% )hs, there was an employer-employee relationship between the
parties%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
$n comparison, in 6reat 7acific Life Corporation v% @LRC =6repalife>,F- the Cort stated;
3?rthermore, it cannot be gainsaid that 6repalife had control over private respondents#
performance as well as the reslt of their efforts% A crsory reading of their respective fnctions as
enmerated in their contracts reveals that the company practically dictates the manner by which
their 2obs are to be carried ot% ?or instance, the 5istrict "anager mst properly accont, record
and docment the company#s fnds spot-check and adit the work of the /one spervisors,
conserve the company#s bsiness in the district throgh Qreinstatements#, follow p the sbmission
of weekly remittance reports of the debit agents and /one spervisors, preserve company property
in good condition, train nderstdies for the position of district manager, and maintain his 'ota of
sales =the failre of which is a grond for termination>% 9n the other hand, a /one spervisor mst
direct and spervise the sales activities of the debit agents nder him, conserve company property
throgh 3reinstatements4, ndertake and discharge the fnctions of absentee debit agents, spot-
check the records of debit agents, and insre proper docmentation of sales and collections by the
debit agents%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
A close scrtiny of the dties and responsibilities of the "anlife managers with those of the
Ri/es wold show a striking similarity that cannot be denied% "ore so, taking the aggregate of the
evidence presented in this case, a 2st and ob2ective mind cannot bt conclde that, as in
6repalife, the "anlife managers are also employees of "anlife%
$n E'itable <anking Corporation,F. the Cort rled;
3)he @LRC, in the instant case, based its finding that there e!isted an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner bank and private respondent on these factal settings;
3$t was complainant#s nderstanding with respondent "orales that he wold be appointed and
assigned to the Legal 5epartment as vice 7resident with the same salary, privileges and benefits
granted by the respondent bank to its ranking senior officers% 8e was not hired as lawyer on a
retainership basis bt as an officer of the bank%
3)hs, the complainant was given an appointment as :ice 7resident, Legal 5epartment, effective
Agst ., .,0., with a monthly salary of 70,---%--, monthly allowance of 7B,E--%--, and the sal
two months Christmas bons based on basic salary likewise en2oyed by the other officers of the
bank%
3)hen, as part of the ongoing organi/ation of the Legal 5epartment, the position of 6eneral
Consel of the bank was created and e!tended to the complainant% $n addition to his dties as :ice
7resident of the bank, the complainant#s dties and responsibilities were so defined as to prove
that he was a bank officer working nder the spervision of the 7resident and the <oard of
5irectors of the respondent bank%
3$n his more than eight years employment with the respondent bank, the complainant was given the
sal payslips to evidence his monthly gross compensation% )he respondent bank, as employer,
withheld ta!es de to the <rea of $nternal Revene from the complainant#s salary as employee%
"oreover, the bank enrolled the complainant as its employee nder the (ocial (ecrity (ystem
and "edicare programs% )he complainant contribted to the bank Employees# 7rovident ?nd%
3&hen the respondent bank changed its payroll acconting system in (eptember .,00 by
appointing (6: H Co% to handle it and ?ar East <ank H )rst Company to pay the salaries and
other benefits of E'itable <anking Corporation officers, the complainant was inclded as one of
corporate officers% (pecifically, that there were eleven ?ar East <ank and )rst Company credit
memos starting 9ctober .F, .,00 p to (eptember .F, .,0, received by the complainant from
?<)C crediting his salary and Christmas bons to his accont with ?<)C per instrction of the
respondent bank%
3$n as mch as the complainant and the lawyers in the Legal 5epartment were receiving salaries
and other benefits as other bank officers and employees, the attorney#s fees, docmentary and
notarial fees earned in the e!ercise of their profession as in-hose lawyers were not given to or
even shared with them, instead all were credited to the income of the bank% $n .,01 and .,00, the
complainant and his sbordinate lawyers were able to generate by way of attorney#s fees,
docmentary and notarial fees a total income of 7,1F,-+0%-- for the bank=#s> benefit% $n trn, the
respondent bank sholdered the professional ta! and $ntegrated <ar of the 7hilippines des of the
complainant and his sbordinate lawyers% ?rther proofs that there e!isted employer-employee
relationship between the respondent bank and the complainant are the following, to wit;
3=.> Complainant#s monthly attendance, like those of other bank officers, was recorded by the
Chief (ecrity 9fficer and reported to the 9ffice of the 7resident with copy of the report frnished
to the bank 7ersonnel and 8R5 5epartment%
15 | To n g k o
3=+> Complainant was athori/ed by the 7resident to sign for and in behalf of the bank contracts
covering legal services of lawyers to be retained by the respondent bank for its branches on
periodical retainership basis%
3=F> Complainant participated as part of management in annal "anagement 7lanning
Conferences which started in .,0A on ob2ective-setting and long-range planning in response to the
re'irement of the rapidly changing environment%
3=B> Respondent bank e!tended to complainant the benefit =of> a car plan like any other 'alified
senior officer of the bank%
3=E> Respondent bank since .,0+ continosly reported and inclded the complainant as one of
its senior officers in its statements of financial condition holding the position of :ice 7resident%
)hese bank statements have been distribted and circlari/ed to the pblic, inclding bank clients
and government entities%
3=A> Complainant, like other bank officers, prepared his biographical data for sbmission to the
Central <ank after his assmption of dties in .,0.% )hereafter, and prsant to the reglations of
the Central <ank, he has been re'ired to pdate annally his biographical data%4
$t wold virtally be foolhardy to so challenge the @LRC as having committed grave abse of
discretion in coming p with its above findings% *st to the contrary, @LRC appears to have been
rather e!hastive in its e!amination of this particlar 'estion =e!istence or absence of an
employer-employee relationship between the parties>% (bstantial evidence, which is the 'antm
of evidence re'ired to establish a fact in cases before administrative and 'asi-2dicial bodies,
connotes merely that amont of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to be
ade'ate in 2stifying a conclsion%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
8ere, by virte of designating )ongko initially as a Gnit "anager and later on as a Regional
"anager, "anlife mst be deemed as having considered )ongko as an officer of the company%
?rthermore, )ongko has been involved in "anlife#s manpower development programs% )hs, 2st
as in E'itable <anking Corporation, )ongko mst be considered as an employee of "anlife%
&hile in Aboiti/ 8alers, $nc% v% 5imapatoi,F+ 5imapatoi and several other individals worked as
checkers in "ega &arehose, which Aboiti/ 8alers, $nc% owned% Aboiti/ claimed that the
complaining workers are not its employees, bt rather, of 6rigio (ecrity Agency and 6eneral
(ervices =6rigio>, a manpower agency that spplies secrity gards, checkers and stffers% $t
allegedly entered into a &ritten Contract of (ervice with 6rigio in .,,B% )he workers# services were
terminated by Aboiti/ on the prete!t that its contract with 6rigio had already e!pired% $n this case,
the Cort fond that Aboiti/ was the employer of the workers e!ercising control over them;
37etitioner#s allegation that 6rigio retained control over the respondents by providing spervisors to
monitor the performance of the respondents cannot be given mch weight% $nstead of e!ercising
their own discretion or referring the matter to the officers of 6rigio, 6rigio#s spervisors were
obligated to refer to petitioner#s spervisors any discrepancy in the performance of the respondents
with their specified dties% )he &ritten Contract of (ervices provided that;
E%c% )hat the 6R$6$9 personnel, particlarly the spervisors, shall perform the following;
)he (pervisor for the warehose operation shall monitor the performance and prodctivity of all
the checkers, 2acklifters, stffersMstrippers, forklift operators, drivers, and helpers% 8e shall
coordinate with A8$#s spervisors regarding the operations at the &arehose to ensre safety at
the place of work%
8e shall see to it that the cargoes are not overlanded, shortlanded, delivered at a wrong
destination, or misdelivered to consignee#s port of destination% Any discrepancy shall be reported
immediately to A8$#s Logistic "anager, "r% Andy :aleroso%
)he control e!ercised by petitioner#s spervisors over the performance of respondents was to sch
e!tent that petitioner#s &arehose (pervisor, Roger <orromeo, confidently gave an evalation of
the performance of respondent "onaorai 5imapatoi, who likewise felt obliged to obtain sch
Certification from <orromeo%
7etitioner#s control over the respondents is evident% And it is this right to control the employee, not
only as to the reslt of the work to be done, bt also as to the means and methods by which the
same is to be accomplished, that constittes the most important inde! of the e!istence of the
employer-employee relationship%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
&ith this case, it becomes apparent that spervision and monitoring is sfficient to establish control
that is evidence of an employer-employee relationship% (ch control wold, therefore, be even
more evident in the instant case considering that )ongko himself was tasked to spervise and
monitor the activities of "anlife agents% "oreover, it may be gleaned from the records of the case
that )ongko reported to "anlife with regard the performance of his agents% $t was not, as if,
)ongko was left alone to spervise, and perhaps, discipline sch agents% )ongko mst be deemed
as an employee of "anlife%
$n fact, in La/aro,FF the Cort rled that a (ales (pervisor was considered an employee as she
3oversaw and spervised the sales agents of the company4;
3La/aro#s argments may be dispensed with by applying precedents% (ffice it to say, the fact that
Ladato was paid by way of commission does not preclde the establishment of an employer-
employee relationship% $n 6repalife v% *dico, the Cort pheld the e!istence of an employer-
employee relationship between the insrance company and its agents, despite the fact that the
compensation that the agents on commission received was not paid by the company bt by the
investor or the person insred% )he relevant factor remains, as stated earlier, whether the
3employer4 controls or has reserved the right to control the 3employee4 not only as to the reslt of
the work to be done bt also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be
accomplished%
@either does it follow that a person who does not observe normal hors of work cannot be deemed
an employee% $n Cosmopolitan ?neral 8omes, $nc% v% "aalat, the employer similarly denied the
e!istence of an employer-employee relationship, as the claimant according to it, was a 3spervisor
on commission basis4 who did not observe normal hors of work% )his Cort declared that there
was an employer-employee relationship, noting that 3KtheL spervisor, althogh compensated on
commission basis, KisL e!empt from the observance of normal hors of work for his compensation
is measred by the nmber of sales he makes%4
16 | To n g k o
$t shold also be emphasi/ed that the ((C, also as pheld by the Cort of Appeals, fond that
Ladato was a sales spervisor and not a mere agent% As sch, Ladato oversaw and spervised
the sales agents of the company, and ths was sb2ect to the control of management as to how
she implements its policies and its end reslts% ! ! !
)he finding of the ((C that Ladato was an employee of Royal (tar is spported by sbstantial
evidence% )he ((C e!amined the cash vochers issed by Royal (tar to Ladato, calling cards of
Royal (tar denominating Ladato as a 3(ales (pervisor4 of the company, and Certificates of
Appreciation issed by Royal (tar to Ladato in recognition of her nselfish and loyal efforts in
promoting the company% 9n the other hand, La/aro has failed to present any convincing contrary
evidence, relying instead on his bare assertions% )he Cort of Appeals correctly rled that
petitioner has not sfficiently shown that the ((C#s rling was not spported by sbstantial
evidence%
A piece of docmentary evidence appreciated by the ((C is "emorandm dated F "ay .,0- of
)eresita La/aro, 6eneral "anager of Royal (tar, directing that no commissions were to be given
on all 3main office4 sales from walk-in cstomers and en2oining salesmen and sales spervisors to
observe this new policy% )he "emorandm evinces the fact that, contrary to La/aro#s claim, Royal
(tar e!ercised control over its sales spervisors or agents sch as Ladato as to the means and
methods throgh which these personnel performed their work%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
)ongko was held ot as an officer of "anlife by "anlife itself, being tagged as its "anager% 8e
was tasked to spervise the insrance agents of "anlife% Clearly, the La/aro case mst apply to
)ongko and he mst be considered an employee of "anlife%
?rthermore, the letter of 5e 5ios itself also contained several indicia of control% )o reiterate, it was
stated in the letter that;
3All of a sdden, 6reg, $ have become mch more worried abot yor ability to lead this grop
towards the new direction that we have been discssing these past few weeks, i%e%, "anlife#s goal
to become a ma2or agency-led distribtion company in the 7hilippines% &hile as yo claim, yo
have not stopped anyone from recriting, $ have never heard yo proactively psh for greater
agency recriting% Oo have not been proactive all these years when it comes to agency growth%
! ! ! !
$ cannot afford to see a ma2or region fail to deliver on its developmental goals ne!t year and so, we
are making the following changes in the interim;
.% Oo will hire at yor e!pense a competent assistant who can nload yo of mch of the rotine
tasks which can be easily delegated% )his assistant shold be so chosen as to complement yor
skills and help yo in the areas where yo feel 3may not be yor cp of tea4%
Oo have stated, if not implied, that yor work as Regional "anager may be too ta!ing for yo and
for yor health% )he above cold solve this problem%
! ! ! !
+% Effective immediately, Jevin and the rest of the Agency 9perations will deal with the @orth (tar
<ranch =@(<> in atonomos fashion% ! ! !
$ have decided to make this change so as to redce yor span of control and allow yo to
concentrate more flly on overseeing the remaining grops nder "etro @orth, yor Central Gnit
and the rest of the (ales "anagers in "etro @orth% $ will hold yo solely responsible for meeting
the ob2ectives of these remaining grops%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
)he goal of "anlife was to become an agency-driven insrance company% $f )ongko were indeed
not an employee of "anlife, the company wold not set the means and methods to achieve sch
goal% As long as )ongko was able to recrit the set nmber of agents, there wold be no reason for
"anlife to terminate his services as an independent contractor% 8owever, that is not the case
here% $t may be gleaned from the letter that 5e 5ios is directing )ongko to clamor more actively his
peers and his agents to recrit other agents% $t was not sfficient that )ongko, by himself, recrit
agents% )his directive certainly shows that "anlife soght to prescribe the means and methods to
achieve its goal%
5e 5ios frther ordered )ongko to hire at his e!pense an assistant on whom he 3can nload yo of
mch of the rotine tasks which can be easily delegated%4 )here is no other way to classify this
order bt as an intrsion into the means and methods of achieving the company#s goals%
$n the letter, )ongko was also informed that his area of responsibility was going to be redced% $n
"egascope 6eneral (ervices v% @ational Labor Relations Commission,FB between ?ebrary .E,
.,11 and *anary ., .,0,, petitioner contracted the services of several individals as gardeners,
helpers and maintenance workers% )hese workers were deployed at the @ational 7ower
Corporation in <agac, <ataan% E!cept for 6ener *% del Rosario whose employment ended on April
F-, .,0,, the work of the other workers ceased on *anary F., .,,.% Conse'ently, private
respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nderpayment of salaries, nonpayment of five-
day service incentive leave credits and holiday pay against petitioner with the @LRC% )he Cort
rled therein that the company e!ercised control over the workers that wold establish an
employer-employee relationship when it reassigned the workers from one workplace to another;
37rivate respondents were selected and hired by petitioner which assigned them to the @7C
hosing village in <agac and in Jm% .A0, "orong, <ataan% )hey drew their salaries from petitioner
which eventally dismissed them% 7etitioner#s control over private respondents was manifest in its
power to assign and pll them ot of clients at its own discretion% 7ower of control refers merely to
the e!istence of the power and not to the actal e!ercise thereof% $t is not essential for the
employer to actally spervise the performance of dties of the employee% $t is enogh that the
former has the right to wield the power%4
$n (oth 5avao 5evelopment Company, $nc%,FE the Cort rled that the workers mst be
considered as employees of the company as the latter e!ercised control over the means and
methods employed by the workers to achieve their ob2ective, as evidenced by its power to transfer
the copra workers as its employees to that of 6amo;
3$n this case, it was in the e!ercise of its power of control when petitioner corporation transferred
the copra workers from their previos assignments to work as copraceros% $t was also in the
e!ercise of the same power that petitioner corporation pt 6amo in charge of the copra workers
althogh nder a different payment scheme% )hs, it is clear that an employer-employee
17 | To n g k o
relationship has e!isted between petitioner corporation and respondents since the beginning and
sch relationship did not cease despite their reassignments and the change of payment scheme%4
(imilarly, in the instant case, by limiting the area of responsibility of )ongko, this is akin to a
transfer or reassignment, an e!ercise of control by "anlife over )ongko that mst necessarily
determine the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship% 9n the same isse, *stice Carpio-
"orales added in her 5issenting 9pinion to the *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion that;
3"ore significantly, in the scceeding $nslar Life case, the Cort fond the following indicators
material in finding the presence of control in cases involving insrance managers;
E!clsivity of service, control of assignments and removal of agents nder private respondent#s
nit, collection of premims, frnishing of company facilities and materials as well as capital
described as Gnit 5evelopment ?nd are bt hallmarks of the management system in which herein
private respondent worked% )his obtaining, there is no escaping the conclsion that private
respondent 7antaleon de los Reyes was an employee of herein petitioner% ! ! !
)he ponencia concldes that 3KaLll these are obviosly absent4 in petitioner#s case% )he facts show
otherwise, however% 9n top of the e!clsive service rendered to respondent, which A?7 "tal
<enefit Association, $nc% v% @LRC instrcts to be not controlling, other factors were present%
7etitioner established no agency of his own as the "etro @orth Region to which he was assigned
remained intact even after his ties with respondent were severed% Respondent provided and
frnished company facilities, e'ipments and materials for petitioner at respondent#s "akati office%
Respondent#s control of assignments was evident from its act of removing the @orth (tar <ranch
from petitioner#s scope of the "etro @orth Region, on which a 3memo to spell this matter ot in
greater detail4 was advised to be issed shortly thereafter% Respondent reserved to impose other
improvements in the region after manifesting its intention to closely follow the region% Respondent#s
managers, like petitioner, cold only refer and recommend to respondent prospective agents who
wold be part of their respective nits% $n other words, respondent had the last say on the
composition and strctre of the sales nit or region of petitioner% Respondent, in fact, even
devised the deployment of an Agency 5evelopment 9fficer in the region to 3contribte towards the
manpower development work ! ! ! as part of or agency growth campaign%4
(ch an arrangement leads to no other conclsion than that respondent e!ercised the type of
control of an employer, thereby wiping away the perception that petitioner was only a 3lead agent4
as viewed by the ponencia% Even respondent sees otherwise when it rebked petitioner that 3KyLo
=petitioner> may have e!celled in the past as an agent bt, to this date, yo still carry the mindset of
a senior agent%4 $nsofar as his management fnctions were concerned, petitioner was no longer
considered a senior agent%4
?rthermore, while this Cort has already rled that Article +0- of the Labor Code may not be sed
to prove the e!istence of an employer-employee relationship when the same is denied,FA the fact
that the work of the alleged independent contractor is sally necessary or desirable in the sal
bsiness or trade of the employer wold establish a management strctre that wold mean that
)ongko was "anlife#s employee%
(ch element of control, however, was only present in the administrative dties imposed pon
)ongko when he was a manager of "anlife% )he Agreement, as well as other the evidence
presented, does not show the control necessary to establish an employer-employee relationship
while )ongko was 2st an agent of "anlife% 8ence, it is emphasi/ed that it was only pon the
imposition of sch administrative dties that )ongko was an employee of "anlife and only the
conse'ent change in his remnerations shold be considered as his salary% )his wold consist of
his persistency income and management overrides only and not his commissions as an agent%
)he ma2ority wold seem to sggest that the notion of 3control4 as nderstood in the Labor Code
and as applied in labor relations cases differs from the concept of 3control4 that governs the
relationship between an insrance company and its agents% $n 6repalife and in the earlier $nslar
life Assrance Co% Ltd% v% @LRC =Bth 5ivision> =$nslar Life>,F1 it was distinctly noted that the Cort
did not posit the dichotomy presently parlayed by the ma2ority% Consider the following e!cerpts from
$nslar Life;
3E!clsivity of service, control of assignments and removal of agents nder private respondent#s
nit, collection of premims, frnishing of company facilities and materials as well as capital
described as Gnit 5evelopment ?nd are bt hallmarks of the management system in which herein
private respondent worked% )his obtaining, there is no escaping the conclsion that private
respondent 7antaleon de los Reyes was an employee of herein petitioner%4
(imilarly, *stice Carpio-"orales, in the same 5issenting 9pinion, wrote;
3)he $nsrance Code may govern the licensing re'irements and other particlar dties of
insrance agents, bt it does not bar the application of the Labor Code with regard to labor
standards and labor relations%4
$t bears pointing ot that )ongko cannot be considered as an independent contractor of "anlife%
)here is no evidence to establish sch a scenario% $n )elevision and 7rodction E!ponents, $nc% v%
(ervaDa,F0 the Cort enmerates the re'irements for a worker to be considered an independent
contractor;
3Aside from possessing sbstantial capital or investment, a legitimate 2ob contractor or
sbcontractor carries on a distinct and independent bsiness and ndertakes to perform the 2ob,
work or service on its own accont and nder its own responsibility according to its own manner
and method, and free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with
the performance of the work e!cept as to the reslts thereof% )A7E failed to establish that
respondent is an independent contractor% As fond by the Cort of Appeals;
&e find the anne!es sbmitted by the private respondents insfficient to prove that herein
petitioner is indeed an independent contractor% @one of the above conditions e!ist in the case at
bar% 7rivate respondents failed to show that petitioner has sbstantial capital or investment to be
'alified as an independent contractor% )hey likewise failed to present a written contract which
specifies the performance of a specified piece of work, the natre and e!tent of the work and the
term and dration of the relationship between herein petitioner and private respondent )A7E%4
8ere, the records are bereft of any evidence to establish that )ongko had sbstantial capital or
investment to be 'alified as an independent contractor%
)ongko being allowed the privilege to canvas insrance applications is not contrary to his
employment stats% )he ma2ority described petitioner as a lead insrance agent, at best, the
change in his designationfrom nit manager to branch manager and then to regional sales
18 | To n g k o
managerbeing merely reflective of the increase in the nmber of agents nder his gidance as
well as the increase in the area of operation% )ongko, so the ma2ority sggests, never rose to the
level of "anlife#s employee, as he did not even present copies of his managerial appointment to
prove the fact that his agency relationship changed in the sense that "anlife controlled the means
and methods of his work% )he ma2ority posits that even thogh the other managers of "anlife
admitted to having dties and responsibilities other than those contained in a Career Agents
Agreement, )ongko cold not have been anything other than an agent%
&ith de respect, $ beg to disagree with this postre%
$t may be stated, as a general proposition, that an insrance agentwho sally sells insrance at
his convenience following his own selling methods and who, for the most part, is governed by a set
of rlesF, the company promlgates to gide its commission agents in selling its policies that they
may not rn afol of the lawis not an employee% <t as e!plained for reasons stated in my
5issent to the *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion, "anlife, pon the petitioner#s appointment as manager,
e!ercised effective control not only over the reslts of his work, bt also over the means and
methods by which it is to be accomplished% ?or sre, petitioner, while acting as "anlife#s nit or
branch manager, was allowed to sell insrance policies%
And there is nothing absrd, let alone novel abot an employee of an insrance company being
given the privilege to solicit insrance% $n two =+> cases, the Cort has already rled that an
individal may be an employee of an insrance agency while concrrently being allowed to sell
insrance policies for the same company% $n the $nslar Life case,B- $nslar Assrance Co%, Ltd%
=$nslar> entered into an agency contract with 7antaleon de los Reyes athori/ing the latter to
solicit within the 7hilippines applications for life insrance and annities for which he wold be paid
compensation in the form of commissions% Later, on "arch ., .,,F, the same parties entered into
another contract where de los Reyes was appointed as Acting Gnit "anager% )he dties and
responsibilities of de los Reyes inclded the recritment, training, organi/ation and development
within his designated territory of a sfficient nmber of 'alified, competent and trstworthy
nderwriters, and to spervise and coordinate the sales efforts of the nderwriters in the active
solicitation of new bsiness and in the frtherance of the agency#s assigned goals% &e also stated
that;
3Aside from soliciting insrance, 5e los Reyes was also e!pressly obliged to participate in the
company#s conservation program, i%e%, preservation and maintenance of e!isting insrance
policies, and to accept moneys dly receipted on agent#s receipts provided the same were trned
over to the company% As long as he was nit manager in an acting capacity, 5e los Reyes was
prohibited from working for other life insrance companies or with the government% 8e cold not
also accept a managerial or spervisory position in any firm doing bsiness in the 7hilippines
withot the written consent of petitioner%
37rivate respondent worked concrrently as agent and Acting Gnit "anager ntil he was notified by
petitioner on .0 @ovember .,,F that his services were terminated effective .0 5ecember .,,F% 9n
1 "arch .,,B he filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter on the grond that he was illegally
dismissed and that he was not paid his salaries and separation pay%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
)he fact that de los Reyes concrrently acted as an agent, selling insrance for $nslar, and as an
acting Gnit "anager, did not prevent the Cort from rling that de los Reyes was $nslar#s
employee%
(imilarly, in the 6repalife case,B. the brothers Rodrigo and Ernesto Ri/ entered into agency
agreements with 6reat 7acific Life Assrance Corporation =6repalife> for the former to sell the
latter#s insrance policies% )hey started ot as trainee agents and later promoted to Tone
(pervisor and 5istrict "anager, respectively% 5escribing the brother#s dties, the Cort rled;
3! ! ! K)Lheir work at the time of their dismissal as /one spervisor and district manager are
necessary and desirable to the sal bsiness of the insrance company% )hey were entrsted
with spervisory, sales and other fnctions to gard 6repalife#s bsiness interests and to bring in
more clients to the company, and even with administrative fnctions to ensre that all collections,
reports and data are faithflly broght to the company%4
Gpon the foregoing factal setting, the Cort rled that the brothers Ri/ are employees of
6repalife, the latter e!ercising control over the means and methods employed by them to reach
their ob2ective%
Clearly, the fact that an individal acts as an agent of an insrance company is irrelevant to the
isse of whether the individal is an employee of the company% )he Cort has already recogni/ed
the reality that an employee of an insrance company may, at the same time, be an agent and
allowed to act as sch%
$t may be, as asserted, that petitioner was nable to addce in evidence copies of his management
contracts specifying his overall dties and responsibilities as manager% <t then, a management
contract, for prposes of determining the relationship between the worker and the employer, is
simply evidence to spport a conclsion either way% (ch docment, or the absence thereof, wold
not inflence the conclsion on the isse of employment% )he presence of a management contract
wold merely simplify the isse as to the dties and responsibilities of the employee concerned as
they wold then be clearly defined% "oreover, other evidence, like the letter of 5e 5ios, may be
considered to spport the contention that he was an employee of "anlife and prove his dties
and responsibilities as sch%
$t may not be remiss to point ot that )ongko was dismissed from his employment with "anlife for
his failre to recrit sfficient nmbers of agents% As was e!plained in the @ovember 1, +--0
5ecision;
3)he problem started sometime in +--., when "anlife institted manpower development
programs in the regional sales management level% Relative thereto, 5e 5ios addressed a letter
dated @ovember A, +--. to )ongko regarding an 9ctober .0, +--. "etro @orth (ales "anagers
"eeting% $n the letter, 5e 5ios stated;
)he first step to transforming "anlife into a big leage player has been very clear to increase the
nmber of agents to at least .,--- strong for a start% )his may seem diametrically opposed to the
way "anlife was rn when yo first 2oined the organi/ation% (ince then, however, sbstantial
changes have taken place in the organi/ation, as these have been inflenced by developments
both from within and withot the company%
(bse'ently, 5e 5ios wrote )ongko another letter dated 5ecember .0, +--., terminating
)ongko#s services, ths;
19 | To n g k o
$t wold appear, however, that despite the series of meetings and commnications, both one-on-
one meetings between yorself and (:7 Jevin 9# Connor, some of them with me, as well as grop
meetings with yor (ales "anagers, all these efforts have failed in helping yo align yor
directions with "anagements# avowed agency growth policy%
! ! ! !
9n accont thereof, "anagement is e!ercising its prerogative nder (ection .B of yor Agents
Contract as we are now issing this notice of termination of yor Agency Agreement with s
effective fifteen days from the date of this letter%4
And yet, the recritment of agents is not among the dties and responsibilities that were
designated to )ongko in the Agreement% And while there may not have been another contract to
spersede the Agreement that was presented as evidence, the facts of the case bear ot that
)ongko was assigned varios other dties and responsibilities that were not inclded therein%
"anlife#s decision not to e!ecte a management contract with petitioner was well within its
prerogative% 8owever, the bare fact of "anlife and petitioner not having e!ected a management
contract, if this were the case, did not redce the petitioner to a mere 3lead agent%4 &hile there was
perhaps no written management contract whence petitioner#s dties and ndertaking as
nitMbranch manager may easily be fleshed ot prefatory to determining if an employer-employee
relationship with "anlife did e!ist, other evidence was addced to show sch dties and
responsibilities% ?or one, in his letterB+of @ovember A, +--., respondent 5e 5ios addressed
petitioner as sales manager% And as $ wrote in my 5issent to the *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion, it is
difficlt to imagine that "anlife did not isse promotional appointments to petitioner as nit
manager, branch manager, and eventally regional sales manager% (ond management practice
simply re'ires an appointment for any pward personnel movement, particlarly when additional
fnctions and the corresponding increase in compensation are involved% )hen, too, the adverted
affidavits of the managers of "anlife as to the dties and responsibilities of a nit manager, sch
as petitioner, point to the conclsion that these managers were employees of "anlife, applying
the 3for-fold4 test%
Any lingering dobt that petitioner was, by virte of the management appointment, nder "anlife#s
employ shold be laid to rest by its virtal admission made in its "otion for Reconsideration dated
5ecember F, +--0 that petitioner was dismissed for a 2st and lawfl case; gross and habital
neglect of dties, inefficiency and willfl disobedience of the lawfl orders of "anlife, to wit;
E%B% And yet, ntil the @ovember 1 5ecision, Respondents never thoght for one moment that
7etitioner was "anlife#s employee% All the agreements e!ected with him, his fle!ible hors, his
nspervised choice of clients and method of selling the prodcts, his ability to take leave anytime,
his separate bsiness e!penses, his own declarations in his ta! retrn, Respondent "anlife#s
non-contribtion of ((( premims for him, his non-e!istence in the company plantilla, Respondent
"anlife#s withholding from him of creditable income ta!, all consistently showed that Respondent
"anlife#s belief was singlar in the e!istence of independent contractorship%
! ! ! !%
E%1% And yet, respondent "anlife did indeed sbstantially comply with the re'irements for
lawfl dismissal of a reglar employee, assming argendo that petitioner is one% 8e was
dismissed for a 2st and lawfl casefor gross disobedience of the lawfl orders of Respondent
"anlife% Respondents presented an abndance of evidence demonstrating how termination
happened only after failre to meet company goals, after all remedial efforts to correct the
inefficiency of 7etitioner failed and after 7etitioner, as fond by the CA, created dissension in
Respondent "anlife whenche refsed to accept the need for improvement in his area and
contined to spread the bile of discontent and rebellion that he had generated among the other
agents%4
@otably, in the termination letter of "anlife that was addressed to )ongko, no mention is made of
any valid case for the termination of his services% @o mention was made of any particlar rle that
)ongko violated leading to his separation% Evidently, )ongko#s termination of employment was
withot case% $n an apparent abot face, "anlife now claims that it had a valid case for the
termination of )ongko#s services%
&hile the Cort allows the presentation of inconsistent defenses, "anlife#s argmentation on this
point wold destroy its position that )ongko is not its employee% "anlife is essentially pointing ot
the facts that wold show that it abided by the re'irements of the Labor Code on the dismissal of
an employee% Article +0+, paragraphs =a> and =b>, of the Labor Code re'ires the presence of valid
gronds for the legal dismissal of an employee;
3Article +0+% )ermination by employer%An employer may terminate an employment for any of
the following 2st cases;
=a> (erios miscondct or willfl disobedience by the employee of the lawfl orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
=b> 6ross and habital neglect by the employee of his dties;4
(tated differently, sch re'irements are only re'ired of employers with regard to their
employees% "anlife had no reason to comply with this provision of law if it did not consider )ongko
as an employee% )herefore, the 'estion is begged as to why "anlife deemed it necessary to
comply with sch provision of law% )here is an implied admission that )ongko was "anlife#s
employee%
)he following e!cerpts appearing in my 5issent to the *ne +,, +-.- Resoltion are self-
e!planatory;
3At this 2nctre, the Cort notes that "anlife has changed its stance on the isse of illegal
dismissal% $n its 7osition 7aper with "otion to 5ismiss filed before the Labor Arbiter, in its "otion
for Reconsideration =Re; 5ecision dated +1 (eptember +--B> dated 9ctober .., +--B filed before
the @LRC, and in its Comment dated Agst E, +--A filed before the Cort, "anlife had
consistently assmed the postre that the dismissal of petitioner was a proper e!ercise of
termination proviso nder the Career Agent#s Agreement% $n this motion, however, "anlife, in a
virtal acknowledgment of petitioner being its employee, contends that the petitioner was
3dismissed for a 2st and lawfl casefor gross and habital neglect of dties, inefficiency and
willfl disobedience of the lawfl orders%4 "anlife adds that;
Respondents presented an abndance of evidence demonstrating how termination happened only
after failre to meet company goals, after all remedial efforts to correct the inefficiency of 7etitioner
20 | To n g k o
failed and after 7etitioner, as fond by the CA, created dissension in Respondent "anlife when he
refsed to accept the need for improvement in his area and contined to spread the bile of
discontent and rebellion that he had generated among the other agents%4
$n all, $ sbmit that petitioner#s pecliar circmstances as nit manager, branch manager and
ltimately regional sales manager of "anlife, with the e!clsivity featre of his engagement and
his dties as sch manager, indicate, at the very least, a prima facie e!istence of an employer-
employee relationship, following the control test% And given the bias of the Constittion,BF Labor
CodeBB and Civil CodeBE in favor of labor, any dobt as to the e!istence of sch relationship
occasioned by the lack of evidence shold be resolved in favor of petitioner and of employment% $n
this regard, $ hark back anew to what the Cort emphatically said in 5ealco ?arms, $nc% v% @ational
Labor Relations Commission;
38aving failed to sbstantiate its allegations on the relationship between the parties, we stick to the
settled rle in controversies between a laborer and his master that dobts reasonably arising from
the evidence shold be resolved in the former#s favor%4BA
As in 5ealco ?arms, the sympathies of the Cort in this case shold be easy and clear% )he flip-
flopping of the lower tribnals and the change in the Cort#s own stand lcidly show the ambigity
and dobt in the application of the labor laws to the instant case% As sch, the Cort is dty-bond
to resolve sch dobts in favor of the employee, )ongko%
)ongko was illegally dismissed
8aving established that )ongko was indeed an employee of "anlife when he was a manager
thereof, the ne!t 'estion is whether the dismissal was illegal%
)his mst be answered in the affirmative%
$n the @LRC and the CA, "anlife alleged that )ongko was validly dismissed for gross and habital
neglect of dties, inefficiency, as well as willfl disobedience of the lawfl orders of "anlife%
Evidently, sch dismissal was de to )ongko#s failre to recrit the re'ired nmber of agents from
his area of responsibility%
)o reiterate, two =+> of the alleged gronds for the dismissal of )ongko fall nder Art% +0+,
paragraphs =a> and =b> of the Labor Code;
3Article +0+% )ermination by employer%An employer may terminate an employment for any of
the following 2st cases;
=a> (erios miscondct or willfl disobedience by the employee of the lawfl orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
=b> 6ross and habital neglect by the employee of his dties;4
9n the other hand, inefficiency as a grond for termination of employment is e'ated with gross
and habital neglect, as the Cort e!plained in (t% Lke#s "edical Center, $ncorporated v%
?adrigo;B1
36ross inefficiency is closely related to gross neglect, for both involve specific acts of omission on
the part of the employee reslting in damage to the employer or to his bsiness% As a 2st case for
an employee#s dismissal, inefficiency or neglect of dty mst not only be gross bt also habital%
)hs, a single or isolated act of negligence does not constitte a 2st case for the dismissal of the
employee%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
$n cases of termination of employment for 2st cases, the Cort has repeatedly held that the
brden rests on the employer to 2stify sch dismissal% Art% +11, paragraph =b> of the Labor Code
states;
3Article +11% "iscellaneos provisions%! ! !
=b> (b2ect to the constittional right of workers to secrity of tenre and their right to be
protected against dismissal e!cept for a 2st and athori/ed case and withot pre2dice to the
re'irement of notice nder Article +0F of this Code, the employer shall frnish the worker whose
employment is soght to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cases for
termination and shall afford the latter ample opportnity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rles and reglations
promlgated prsant to gidelines set by the 5epartment of Labor and Employment% Any decision
taken by the employer shall be withot pre2dice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or
legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the @ational Labor
Relations Commission% )he brden of proving that the termination was for a valid or athori/ed
case shall rest on the employer% )he (ecretary of the 5epartment of Labor and Employment may
sspend the effects of the termination pending resoltion of the dispte in the event of a prima
facie finding by the appropriate official of the 5epartment of Labor and Employment before whom
sch dispte is pending that the termination may case a serios labor dispte or is in
implementation of a mass lay-off%4 =Emphasis spplied%>
)hs, the Cort has rled in Calte! =7hilippines>, $nc% v% AgadB0 that;
3$n termination cases, the brden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal is for
2st case% &hen there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal case for the termination of
employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the brden is on the
employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or athori/ed case%
)he 'antm of proof which the employer mst discharge is sbstantial evidence% An employee#s
dismissal de to serios miscondct and loss of trst and confidence mst be spported by
sbstantial evidence% (bstantial evidence is that amont of relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as ade'ate to spport a conclsion, even if other minds, e'ally reasonable,
might conceivably opine otherwise%4
&hile in Lima Land, $nc% v% Cevas,B, the Cort rled;
21 | To n g k o
3&ell-settled is the rle that the essence of de process is simply an opportnity to be heard or, as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportnity to e!plain one#s side or an opportnity to
seek a reconsideration of the action or rling complained of%
"oreover, in dismissing an employee, the employer has the brden of proving that the former
worker has been served two notices; =.> one to apprise him of the particlar acts or omissions for
which his dismissal is soght, and =+> the other to inform him of his employer#s decision to dismiss
him% )he first notice mst state that dismissal is soght for the act or omission charged against the
employee, otherwise, the notice cannot be considered sfficient compliance with the rles%
)he first written notice to be served on the employees shold contain the specific cases or
gronds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportnity
to sbmit their written e!planation within a reasonable period% 3Reasonable opportnity4 nder the
9mnibs Rles means every kind of assistance that management mst accord to the employees to
enable them to prepare ade'ately for their defense% )his shold be constred as a period of at
least five =E> calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportnity to stdy
the accsation against them, conslt a nion official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and
decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint% "oreover, in order to enable the
employees to intelligently prepare their e!planation and defenses, the notice shold contain a
detailed narration of the facts and circmstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the
employees% A general description of the charge will not sffice% Lastly, the notice shold specifically
mention which company rles, if any, were violated andMor which among the gronds nder Article
+0+ is being charged against the employees%4
"anlife has failed to overcome sch brden% &illfl disobedience, to 2stify termination from
employment, mst comply with the following re'irements, as ennciated in Areno v% (kycable
7CC-<agio,E- to wit;
3As a 2st case for dismissal of an employee nder Article +0+ of the Labor Code, willfl
disobedience of the employer#s lawfl orders re'ires the concrrence of two elements; =.> the
employee#s assailed condct mst have been willfl, i%e%, characteri/ed by a wrongfl and perverse
attitde; and =+> the order violated mst have been reasonable, lawfl, made known to the
employee, and mst pertain to the dties which he had been engaged to discharge%4
@eglect of dty, to be a valid grond for termination of employment mst also conform to the
following re'irements, as stated in <en2amin v% Amellar Corporation;E.
3$t bears stressing in dismissing an employee for gross and habital neglect of dties, the
negligence shold not merely be gross% $t shold also be habital% )here being nothing in the
records to identify what specific dties Anabel violated and whether the violations were gross and
habital, any discssion herein is an e!ercise in ftility%4
8ere, "anlife has failed to identify the rle and the standards by which )ongko#s acts were
considered nsatisfactory% )here were no set criteria for determining the sfficiency of )ongko#s
recritment efforts% "oreover, )ongko#s acts were not proved to be willfl or gross and habital as
defined by the above-cited 2risprdence% Absent proof establishing sch factors, "anlife cannot
be considered to have discharged the brden re'ired to prove that the 2st case for termination
of employment was indeed present% $n fact, at the time )ongko#s services were terminated, his area
was not the last in agent recritment% As sch, )ongko#s dismissal smacks of arbitrariness%
$nformal commnications violate the principle of sb 2dice
9n a final note, the Cort received and set for agenda for =B> letters in relation to the instant case;
=.> Letter of )ongko dated @ovember F-, +--E;E+ =+> the aforementioned letter of the *oint ?oreign
Chambers of the 7hilippines dated 5ecember .A, +--0;EF =F> Letter of 6regorio "ercado,
7resident of the 7hilippine Life $nsrance Association, $nc% dated *anary .+, +--,;EB and =B>
Letter of )ongko dated "arch +E, +--,,EE proponding their positions on the case% At that point in
time, the case had not yet become final and e!ectory, hence, sb 2dice% $n Romero v% Estrada,EA
the Cort e!ponded on this principle, to wit;
3)he sb 2dice rle restricts comments and disclosres pertaining to 2dicial proceedings to avoid
pre2dging the isse, inflencing the cort, or obstrcting the administration of 2stice% A violation of
the sb 2dice rle may render one liable for indirect contempt nder (ec% F=d>, Rle 1. of the
Rles of Cort% )he rationale for the rle adverted to is set ot in @estle 7hilippines v% (anche/;
K$Lt is a traditional conviction of civili/ed society everywhere that corts and 2ries, in the decision of
isses of fact and law shold be immne from every e!traneos inflence; that facts shold be
decided pon evidence prodced in cort; and that the determination of sch facts shold be
ninflenced by bias, pre2dice or sympathies%4
)he principle of sb 2dice is a two-way street% $nasmch as the parties and other interested
individals shold refrain from trying to inflence the corts, the cort itself shold also be on gard
against sch attempts% )he Cort shold, therefore, be wary from accepting and ptting on record,
papers and docments not officially filed with it% (ch sbmissions have the appearance of
inflencing the Cort despite the latter#s determined ob2ectivity and mst be avoided% )o illstrate,
the @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision of this Cort was decided in favor of )ongko with only one =.>
dissent% 8owever, in the *ly +,, +-.- Resoltion, the original 5ecision was reversed in favor of
"anlife by the Cort en banc, with only two =+> dissents% )he above-mentioned letters were
received by the Cort after @ovember 1, +--0 bt before *ly +,, +-.-% &hile the letters
themselves may not have actally swayed the members of the Cort, the appearance of
impropriety shold be avoided% )o reiterate, when the parties sbmitted the aforementioned letters,
the case had not yet become final and e!ectory, they had sfficient remedies nder the Rles of
Cort for redress% )here was no reason for the parties to have sbmitted sch letters and for this
Cort to have taken cogni/ance thereof and to set the same for agenda%
)o reiterate, the declaration that )ongko is an employee of "anlife, having performed
administrative fnctions as its manager, cannot be applied to insrance agents in general% Any
finding of an employer-employee relationship shall always be on a case-to-case basis% )he instant
case is no e!ception% Any fear that the grant of )ongko#s motion for reconsideration shall render all
insrance agents in the contry as employees of insrance companies is badly misplaced%
&8ERE?9RE, $ vote to grant )ongko#s "otion for Reconsideration dated *ly +0, +-.-, to annl
and set aside the *ne +,, +-.-, and to reinstate the @ovember 1, +--0 5ecision with modification
on the amont of backwages to which )ongko shall be entitled% As ths modified and sb2ect to the
'alifications defined in the 5issenting 9pinion to the *ne +,, +-.-, petitioner shold be awarded
backwages, to be compted as the monthly average of his management overrides, as well as other
bonses and benefits, corresponding to the period he was serving "anlife as nit, branch and
eventally regional sales manager%
22 | To n g k o
"otion for Reconsideration denied with finality%
@ote%&e reiterate the time-honored principle that the law, in protecting the rights of the laborer,
athori/es neither oppression nor self-destrction of the employer% =9!ales vs% Gnited Laboratories,
$nc%, EE, (CRA +A K+--0L>
23 | To n g k o

You might also like