Insurance - Tongko 07.10

 

TONGKO v MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE G.R. 16722. JUNE 29, 2010 ISSUE:   Whether or not the petitioner is an employee of the respondent. RULING: 

The law that governs the relationship between the insurance agent and insurance firm is the Insurance Code of the Philippines applying secondarily the Civil Code provisions on agency. The Court agrees that there is an element of control under a principal and agent relationship and an employer-employee relationship under the provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines however there are marked differences in terms of its application and interpretation. Under the Insurance Code, the insurance company imposes production quotas and suggestions to increase sales of insurance products without controlling the means and methods to achieve the business ends of the company however in an employer employee relationship within the purview of labor law the employer controls not only the desired result of the employee’s activity but also the means and methods of achieving that result. Based on the careful consideration of the evidence presented by both parties, it is clear that under the agency agreement between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner shall work as an insura ins urance nce agent agent equiva equivalen lentt to an indepe independe ndent nt agent agent for the purpo purpose se of sel sellin ling g Man Manuli ulife fe  products and petitioner’s income tax returns states that he is a self-employed which are strong evidence that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondent. Hence, jurisdiction regarding the issue of petitioner’s illegal dismissal is vested in regular  courts not in labor tribunals. BASIS (FACTS): Gregorio Tongko became an insurance agent of Manufaturers Life Insurance from 1977 up to his termination in 2001. Prior to his termination, he was a Regional Sales Manager. Petitioner was dismissed on the ground of his failure to abide by the suggestions of  the compan company’s y’s execut executive ivess in streng strengthe thenin ning g the compan company’s y’s agency agency growth growth develo developme pment nt objectives. object ives. Petitioner Petitioner filed an illegal illegal dismissal dismissal case against against the respondent respondent before before the Labor  Arbite Arb iter. r. The Labor Labor Arbite Arbiterr dismis dismissed sed the case case for want want of jur jurisd isdict iction ion.. Nation National al Labor  Labor  Relations Commission reversed the decision of the Arbiter. The Court of Appeals reinstated

the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. The Supreme Court in its November 7, 2008 decision concurred with the NLRC’s findings that the petitioner is an employee of the respondent.

Submitted by: Jeniffer P. Sison 2005-02-05168