Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ô
c
×
ë×ëëa
@ is petition for p under Rule 65, Rules of Court seeks to annul t e Resolution
of t e National Labor Relations Commission, promulgated September 27, 1991, in
NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-02-01196-90, entitled "Eutiquio Bustamante vs. AFP Mutual
Benefit Association, Inc.," affirming t e decision of t e labor arbiter w ic ordered
payment of t e amount of P319,796.00 as insurance commissions to private
respondent.
@ p
p
2. @ e SALES AGEN@ s all confine is business activities for AFPMBAI w ile inside any
military camp, installation or residence of military personnel. He is free to solicit in t e
area for w ic e/s e is licensed and as aut oriied, provided owever, t at AFPMBAI
may from time to time, assign im a specific area of responsibility and a production quota
on a case to case basis.
C. Commission
1. @ e SALES AGEN@ s all be entitled to t e commission due for all premiums actually
due and received by AFPMBAI out of life insurance policies solicited and obtained by t e
SALES AGEN@ at t e rates set fort in t e applicant's commission sc edules ereto
attac ed.
D. General Provisions
On July 5, 1989, petitioner dismissed private respondent for misrepresentation and for
simultaneously selling insurance for anot er life insurance company in violation of said
agreement.
Sometime in October 1989, private respondent was informed t at is c eck was ready
for release. In collecting is c eck, e discovered from a document (account summary)
attac ed to said c eck t at is total commissions for t e 24 mont s actually amounted
to P354,796.09. Said document stated: o
6. @ e total receivable for Mr. Bustamante out of t e renewals and old business
generated since 1983 grosses P438,835.00 less is outstanding obligation in t e amount
of P78,039.89 as of June 30, 1989, total expected commission would amount to
P354,796.09. From t at figure at a 15% compromise settlement t is would mean
P53,219.41 due im to settle is claim.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, t is petition.
@
Petitioner argues t at, despite provisions B(1) and (2) of t e Sales Agent's Agreement,
t ere is no employer-employee relations ip between private respondent and itself.
Hence, respondent commission gravely abused its discretion w en it eld t at t e labor
arbiter ad jurisdiction over t e case.
@ e petition is meritorious.
@
Furt er, not every form of control t at a party reserves to imself over t e conduct of t e
ot er party in relation to t e services being rendered may be accorded t e effect of
establis ing an employer-employee relations ip. @ e facts of t is case fall squarely wit
t e case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC. In said case, we eld t at:
(Private respondent) was free to solicit life insurance anyw ere e wanted and e ad
free and unfettered time to pursue is business. He did not ave to punc in and punc
out t e bundy clock as e was not required to report to t e (petitioner's) office regularly.
He was not covered by any employee policies or regulations and not subject to t e
disciplinary action of management on t e basis of t e Employee Code of Conduct. He
could go out and sell insurance at is own c osen time. He was entirely left to is own
c oices of areas or territories, wit no definite, muc less supervised, time sc edule.
(Private respondent) ad complete control over is occupation and (petitioner) did not
exercise any rig t of Control and Supervision over is performance except as to t e
payment of commission t e amount of w ic entirely depends on t e sole efforts of
(private respondent). He was free to engage in ot er occupation or practice ot er
profession for as long as e did not commit any violation of t e et ical standards
D
prescribed in t e Sales Agent's Agreement.
Alt oug petitioner could ave, t eoretically, disapproved any of private respondent's
transactions, w at could be disapproved was only t e result of t e work, and not t e
means by w ic it was accomplis ed.
@ e jurisdiction of labor arbiters and respondent Commission is set fort in Article 217
of t e Labor Code. @ e unifying element running t roug paragrap s (1) ² (6) of said
provision is t e consistent reference to cases or disputes
p p
è . Prior to its amendment by Batas Pambansa
Blg. 227 on June 1, 1982, t is point was clear as t e article included "all ot er cases
arising from employer-employee relation unless expressly excluded by t is Code."
it out t is critical element of employment relations ip, t e labor arbiter and
respondent Commission can never acquire jurisdiction over a dispute. As in t e case at
bar. It was serious error on t e part of t e labor arbiter to ave assumed jurisdiction and
adjudicated t e claim. Likewise, t e respondent Commission's affirmance t ereof.
SO ORDERED.
2 , p. 176.
3 , p. 98.
4 , p. 111.
7 , p. 53.
8 Nort Davao Mining Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA
721, 731, Marc 13, 1996; Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 187 SCRA 694, 699, July 23, 1990; Loadstar S ipping Co., Inc.
vs. Gallo, 229 SCRA 654, 660, February 4, 1994; Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc.
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 235 SCRA 268, 277, August 11, 1994.
10 , p. 51.
11 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 459, 464, November 15, 1989;
R one-Poulenc Agroc emicals P ilippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 217 SCRA 249, 255, January
19, 1993; and Villuga vs. NLRC, 225 SCRA 537, 546, August 23, 1993.
13 , p. 36.
14 Investment Planning Corp. of t e P il. vs. Social Security System, 21 SCRA 924, 931,
November 18, 1967.
15 Ô ., p. 465.
17 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC,
, p. 467; Manliguez vs. Court of
Appeals, 232 SCRA 427, 431, May 20, 1994; and Hawaiian-P ilippine Company vs.
Gulmatico, 238 SCRA 181, 187, November 16, 1994.
2. @ermination disputes;;
19 San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 161 SCRA 719,
724-725, May 31, 1988.
20 Sout est Asian Fis eries Development Center-Agriculture Department vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 206 SCRA 283, 288, February 14, 1992; and Calimlim vs.
Ramirez, 118 SCRA 399, 406, November 19, 1982.
23 P ilippine Singapore Ports Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 218
SCRA 77, 83, January 29, 1993.
24 Leonor vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 112597, April 2, 1996, pp. 17-18.