Labor Standard Reviewer

A10 Art. 82-90 Case Title Tongko vs. Manufacturers Life (2008) Fast Facts Tongko and Manulife President De Dios had disagreement as to the direction of the company. On the basis of low performance and invoking the companys prerogative, his services were terminated. Tongko filed for illegal dismissal. There are two phases of Tongkos career in Manulife: Phase 1, as an insurance agent and Phase 2, as a manager. Ruling/Ratio Employing the Control Test: (1) In a letter, Manulife gave Tongko direct orders in how he conducts business, e.g. hiring of an assistant; (2) Codes of Conduct evince control; (3) Agreement evince control, i.e. regulations/requirements, quota There is Er-Ee relationship. Distinction between 2 controls, i.e, Labor Law / Operative Control vs. Built-in Control / Directive Control Guide line s indicative of labor law control, as the first Insular Life case tells us, should not merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining the result, or of fixing the methodology and of binding or restricting the party hire d to the use of these means. No Er-Ee relationship, only principal-agent relationship.

A11

82-90

Tongko vs. Manufacturers Life (2010)