This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| What was glaring in the present case is the undisputed fact that petitioner was never subject to definite working hours. He never denied that he goes to work and leaves therefrom as he pleases.[31] In fact, on December 1-31, 2004, he went on leave without seeking approval from the officers of respondent company. On the contrary, his letter[32] simply informed respondents that he will be away for a month and even advised them that they have the option of appointing his replacement during his absence. This Court has held that there is no employer-employee relationship where the supposed employee is not subject to a set of rules and regulations governing the performance of his duties under the agreement with the company and is not required to report for work at any time, nor to devote his time exclusively to working for the company.[33] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Our ruling in the first Insular[11] case did not foreclose the possibility of an insurance agent becoming an employee of an insurance company; if evidence exists showing that the company promulgated rules or regulations that effectively controlled or restricted an insurance agent's choice of methods or the methods themselves in selling insurance, an employer-employee relationship would be present. The determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship is thus on a case-to-case basis depending on the evidence on record. Manulife had the power of control over Tongko, sufficient to characterize him as an employee, as shown by the following indicators: 2.1 Tongko undertook to comply with Manulife's rules, regulations and other requirements, i.e., the different codes of conduct such as the Agent Code of Conduct, the Manulife Financial Code of Conduct, and the Financial Code of Conduct Agreement; | |||||
|
2008-11-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is, therefore, usual and expected for an insurance company to promulgate a set of rules to guide its commission agents in selling its policies that they may not run afoul of the law and what it requires or prohibits. Of such a character are the rules which prescribe the qualifications of persons who may be insured, subject insurance applications to processing and approval by the Company, and also reserve to the Company the determination of the premiums to be paid and the schedules of payment. None of these really invades the agent's contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance at his own time and convenience, hence cannot justifiably be said to establish an employer-employee relationship between him and the company.[18] | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the means used to achieve it. x x x.[33] | |||||
|
2005-03-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. NLRC,[11] the Court explained the scope of the power to control, thus: x x x It should, however, be obvious that not every form of control that the hiring party reserves to himself over the conduct of the party hired in relation to the services rendered may be accorded the effect of establishing an employer-employee relationship between them in the legal or technical sense of the term. A line must be drawn somewhere, if the recognized distinction between an employee and an individual contractor is not to vanish altogether. Realistically, it would be a rare contract of service that gives untrammelled freedom to the party hired and eschews any intervention whatsoever in his performance of the engagement. | |||||