Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
corporation
engaged
in
life
1,
1977 by
virtue
of
summarized as follows:
insurance
Career
Agents
The problem
started sometime in
2001, when
xxxx
2002 with
the
NLRC
against
Manulife
for
illegal
In a Decision dated April 15, 2004, Labor Arbiter
dismissal. The case, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 1110330-02, was raffled to Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina.
none was
found
in
the
instant
relationship,
SO ORDERED.
reversed
the
same
and
rendered
Decision
The NLRCs First Division, while finding an employeremployee relationship between Manulife and Tongko applying
the four-fold test, held Manulife liable for illegal dismissal. It
further stated that Manulife exercised control over Tongko as
evidenced by the letter dated November 6, 2001 of De Dios
and wrote:
B
The Court of Appeals committed
grave abuse of discretion in annulling and
setting aside the Decision dated September
27, 2004and Resolution dated December 16,
2004 in finding that there is no employeremployee relationship between petitioner
and respondent.
In
lieu
of
reinstatement,
respondent Manulife is hereby ordered to
pay complainant separation pay as above
set forth. Respondent Manulife is further
ordered to pay complainant backwages from
the time he was dismissed on 02 January
2002 up to the finality of this decision also
as indicated above.
C
The Court of Appeals committed
grave abuse of discretion in annulling and
setting aside the Decision dated September
27, 2004and Resolution dated December 16,
2004 which found petitioner to have been
illegally
dismissed
and
ordered
his
reinstatement with payment of backwages.
[13]
xxxx
All other claims are
dismissed for utter lack of merit.
hereby
Restated, the issues are: (1) Was there an employer-employee
relationship between Manulife and Tongko? and (2) If yes, was
1.
You will hire at your
expense a competent assistant who can
unload you of much of the routine tasks
which can be easily delegated. x x x
In the
determination
of whether
xxxx
an
This
immediately.
employer-
such
relationship.
In Pacific
Consultants
be
hired
xxxx
should
2.
Effective immediately,
Kevin and the rest of the Agency Operations
will deal with the North Star Branch (NSB) in
autonomous fashion x x x.
elements
assistant
3.
Any
resistance
or
holding back by anyone will be dealt with
accordingly.
4.
I
have
been
straightforward in this my letter and I know
that we can continue to work together but it
will have to be on my terms. Anything else
is unacceptable!
The NLRC further ruled that the different codes of
conduct that were applicable to Tongko served as the
foundations of the power of control wielded by Manulife over
Tongko
that
is
further
manifested
in
the
different
The NLRC, for its part, applied the four-fold test and
found the existence of all the elements and declared Tongko
that such integration added to the fact that Tongko did not
have his own agency belied Manulifes claim that Tongko was
an independent contractor.
relationship
and
we
ruled
in Insular that
no
employer-
wit:
Thus,
with
the
company
regulations
and
may
already
be
established.
Certainly,
these
In
the
Agreement
dated July
1,
1977 executed
1.
and
requirements
of
the
company;
(2)
2.
Refer
recommend
prospective
agents
Manulife
Coach
agents
become
productive
and
to
to
3.
Regularly
meet with, and
coordinate
activities
of
agents affiliated
to my region.
BM,
render
the
and
recommend
prospective
agents
to
Manulife;
b. Train and coordinate activities of
other commission
agents;
c. Coordinate activities of Agency
Managers who, in
turn, train and
coordinate
activites of other
commission
agents;
d. Achieve
agreed
production
objectives
in
terms
of
Net
Annualized
Commissions and
Case Count and
recruitment
goals; and
e. Sell the various products of
Manulife to my
personal clients.
UM,
render
the
a. To
render
or
recommend
prospective
agents
to
be licensed,
trained and contracted to
sell Manulife products and
who will be part of my
Unit;
b. To coordinate activities
of the agents under my
Unit in their daily, weekly
and
monthly
selling
activities, making
sure
that their respective sales
targets are met;
c. To
conduct
periodic
training sessions for my
In
its
Petition
for
Certiorari
dated January
7,
In Quebec,
Sr.
v.
National
Labor
Relations
that Songco
Commission
[32]
v.
National
Labor
Relations
Taking
into
consideration
the
cases
advisable. Thus,
pay of one (1) month salary for every year of service that is
from
dismissed
the
awards.
due
to
retrenchment
does
not
hamper
1977
to
Tongko
2001
will
be
amounting
entitled
to
PhP
to
backwages
12,435,474.24,
ASIDE. The
Decision
xxxx
xxxx
The 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 (15) days from the time of the
discovery of the breach. No waiver,
extinguishment, abandonment, withdrawal
or cancellation of the right to terminate this
Agreement by the Company shall be
construed for any previous failure to
exercise its right under any provision of this
Agreement.
SO ORDERED.
TONGKO V. MANUFACTURERS LIFE 2010
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
Unit
Manager
in
Manulifes
Sales
Agency
at
the
regional
sales
management
the
following
1.
You will hire at your expense
a competent assistant who can
unload you of much of the routine
tasks
which
can
be
easily
delegated. This assistant should be
so chosen as to complement your
skills and help you in the areas
where you feel may not be your
cup of tea.
You have stated, if not implied, that
your work as Regional Manager
may be too taxing for you and for
your health. The above could solve
this problem.
xxxx
2.
Effective immediately, Kevin
and the rest of the Agency
Operations will deal with the North
Star Branch (NSB) in autonomous
fashion. x x x
I have decided to make this change
so as to reduce your span of
control
and
allow
you
to
concentrate
more
fully
on
overseeing the remaining groups
under Metro North, your Central
Unit and the rest of the Sales
Managers in Metro North. I will hold
you solely responsible for meeting
the objectives of these remaining
groups.
xxxx
The above changes can end at this point
and they need not go any further. This,
however, is entirely dependent upon you.
But you have to understand that meeting
corporate objectives by everyone is primary
and will not be compromised. We are
meeting tough challenges next year, and I
would want everybody on board. Any
resistance or holding back by anyone will be
dealt with accordingly.[6]
terms
of
the
letter
terminating
his
Agency
relationship. A
finding
that
none
exists
bills. As
Regional
Sales
Manager,
Tongko
Manulife
argues
that
Tongko
had
no
fixed
wage
or
be
entitled.
Tongkos
characterized
claim
in
as
the
he
was
four-fold
not
test
its
and
employee
our
as
ruling
[10]
2.1
Manulifes
regulations
and
other
Conduct Agreement;
2.2
The
various
affidavits
of
existence
they
of
an
employer-employee
relationship
and
performed
administrative
duties
[12]
that
and
intended
to
take, viz.,
greater
agency
Tongkos
alleged
failure
to
follow
this
with Manulife.
of
an
insurance
company;
if evidence
exists
motion
for
reconsideration
on
A.
the
following GROUNDS:
1. The November 7[, 2008]
Decision violates Manulifes right to due
process by: (a) confining the review only to
the issue of control and utterly disregarding
all the other issues that had been joined in
this
case;
(b)
mischaracterizing
the
divergence of conclusions between the CA
and the NLRC decisions as confined only to
that on control; (c) grossly failing to
consider the findings and conclusions of the
CA on the majority of the material evidence,
especially [Tongkos] declaration in his
income tax returns that he was a business
person or self-employed; and (d) allowing
[Tongko] to repudiate his sworn statement in
a public document.
2. The November 7[, 2008]
Decision contravenes settled rules in
contract law and agency, distorts not only
the legal relationships of agencies to sell but
also distributorship and franchising, and
ignores the constitutional and policy context
of contract law vis--vis labor law.
3. The November 7[, 2008]
Decision ignores the findings of the CA on
the three elements of the four-fold test
other than the control test, reverses wellsettled doctrines of law on employeremployee
relationships,
and
grossly
misapplies the control test, by selecting,
without basis, a few items of evidence to
the exclusion of more material evidence to
support its conclusion that there is control.
exist
in
principal-agent
principal cannot but also have his or her say in directing the
course of the principal-agent relationship, especially in cases
where
the
company-representative
relationship
relationship. The
in
the
who can be in the insurance business, who can act for and in
[15]
policy and this covers any rebate from the premium or any
authorized
to
do
the
business
of
insurance
in
provide:
under the contract with the principal. Other than the need for
a license, the agent is limited in the way he offers and
negotiates for the sale of the companys insurance products, in
his collection activities, and in the delivery of the insurance
contract or policy. Rules regarding the desired results (e.g.,
the required volume to continue to qualify as a company
agent, rules to check on the parameters on the authority
given to the agent, and rules to ensure that industry, legal
and ethical rules are followed) are built-in elements of control
specific to an insurance agency and should not and cannot be
read as elements of control that attend an employment
relationship governed by the Labor Code.
On the other hand, the Civil Code defines an agent as
a person [who] binds himself to render some service or to do
something in representation or on behalf of another, with the
consent or authority of the latter.[16] While this is a very broad
definition
that
on
its
face
may
even
encompass
an
Assurance
Co.
v.
National
[25]
Labor
Relations
cites
Association,
Inc.
v.
Commission(AFPMBAI case)
is
supplemented
by
the
Labor
Benefit
Relations
This
agency
[19]
companys
Mutual
National
[26]
[17]
and AFP
directly and readily cast in the mold of the cited cases. These
the contrary.
[20]
[21]
By
Insular
Lifecases. A
as these
cited
critical
cases
difference,
dealt
with
however,
the
exists
proper
legal
[23]
This
Article 1891 of the Civil Code which binds the agent to render
appointment
indicative
of
an
employer-employee
relationship.
[24]
The
subsequent
as
acting
contracts
unit
manager
in
which,
like
the
Justice
Conchita
Carpio
Morales
also
cite Insular
Life
made
on
the
basis
of
the
stipulations
of
the
subsequent contracts.
to their
first
the AFPMBAI
Manager
record.
Insular
in
1996,
no
the
formal
as
contract
contract
contract
gave
the
submitted
only
the parties
and
the characterization
or
documentextant
Insular
though,
evidence in
in
regarding
these
present case and the Grepalife and the second Insular Life
business
practice,
an
agency
relationship
acquiesced
from
with
the
the
terms
Agreement,
and
conditions
particularly
the
of
the
generous
commissions.
business
or
self-employed
person
in
returns. This
consistency
with,
and
Commission.
his
income
action
tax
made
Tongko
assumed
leadership
role
but
their own selling activities. This is the reality that the parties
Manulifes manager.
As
already
recited
above,
the
Insurance
Code
ladder. In
unit
the
1983,
Tongko
was
appointed
matter
of
expenses
and
reimbursements. To
these
purposes of employment.
matrix:[31]
Duties of Manulifes Manager
Duties of Gre
- train understudies
- properly account,
funds, spot-check
supervisors, x x x
remittance reports
supervisors
them.
recruiter,
that the labor law element of control cannot reach. Our ruling
over
[30]
trainer,
Tongko
and
or
supervisor
of
other
sales
end
agents
of the
that his additional role as Branch Manager did not lessen his
affidavits
sales agent.
(i.e.,
their
enumerated
administrative
and
between:
role is
to
the District
Managers duty
for termination).
the Zone
Supervisors
(also
in
xxxx
6. I have my own staff that handles the day
to day operations of my office;
xxxx
These
job
contents
are
worlds
apart
in
terms
of
yielded
the
conclusion
that
no
employer-employee
agents. Strictly
operational
viewed,
guidelines
de
on
Dios
how
directives
Tongko
are
could
merely
align
his
obvious intent was to save Tongko from the result that he then
a bigger sales force whose members are all on a principalagent relationship. An important point to note here is
The
present
case
must
be
distinguished
from
through
with
agents
Manulife,
the
all
same
the
Agreement
while
that
sharing
in
he
had
these
that Tongko was not even setting policies in the way a regular
as lead agent;
is
simply
not
there,
since
only
the
and
district
manager
made
them
employees
did
not
mean,
existence
Court
evidence needed.
of
employer-employee
relationship,
the
otherwise one for agency governed by the Civil Code and the
the
issue
of
whether
the
labor bodies
have
of the question
agent may
the dual role of agent and employee while doing the same
Insular Life and the labor arbiter were one in the position that
jurisprudential
quoted
2008, are regrettably far removed from their context i.e., the
for the simple reason that the agency contract has been
terminated for any reason other than for cause, the acting
support
of whether
or
an
precedent. The
to any unit.
and
reconsideration.
as
legally
erroneous
as
the
Decision
under
and contracts.
we REVERSE our
2008, GRANTManulifes
Decision
SO ORDERED.
motion
of
for
November
reconsideration
7,
and,