This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| 5. For all the above reasons, the November 7[, 2008] Decision made unsustainable and reversible errors, which should be corrected, in concluding that Respondent Manulife and Petitioner had an employer-employee relationship, that Respondent Manulife illegally dismissed Petitioner, and for consequently ordering Respondent Manulife to pay Petitioner backwages, separation pay, nominal damages and attorney's fees.[13] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Under the general law on agency as applied to insurance, an agency must be express in light of the need for a license and for the designation by the insurance company. In the present case, the Agreement fully serves as grant of authority to Tongko as Manulife's insurance agent.[17] This agreement is supplemented by the company's agency practices and usages, duly accepted by the agent in carrying out the agency.[18] By authority of the Insurance Code, an insurance agency is for compensation,[19] a matter the Civil Code Rules on Agency presumes in the absence of proof to the contrary.[20] Other than the compensation, the principal is bound to advance to, or to reimburse, the agent the agreed sums necessary for the execution of the agency.[21] By implication at least under Article 1994 of the Civil Code, the principal can appoint two or more agents to carry out the same assigned tasks,[22] based necessarily on the specific instructions and directives given to them. | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Lazaro's arguments may be dispensed with by applying precedents. Suffice it to say, the fact that Laudato was paid by way of commission does not preclude the establishment of an employer-employee relationship. In Grepalife v. Judico,[17] the Court upheld the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the insurance company and its agents, despite the fact that the compensation that the agents on commission received was not paid by the company but by the investor or the person insured.[18] The relevant factor remains, as stated earlier, whether the "employer" controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.[19] | |||||