Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The Decision of November 7, 2008 refers to the first Insular and Grepalife cases to establish that the company rules and regulations that an agent has to comply with are indicative of an employer-employee relationship.[24] The Dissenting Opinions of Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. and Justice Conchita Carpio Morales also cite Insular Life Assurance Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission (second Insular case)[25] to support the view that Tongko is Manulife's employee. On the other hand, Manulife cites the Carungcong case and AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (AFPMBAI case)[26] to support its allegation that Tongko was not its employee.
	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. 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.
	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. 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.
	GR No. 168537 2008-12-11	DAMIAN AKLAN v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that the employment contracts of petitioners duly prove that an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and BMA.We hasten to add that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and the findings by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on that score shall be accorded not only respect but even finality when supported by ample evidence.[16]
	GR No. 155207 2008-08-13	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA NACHURA, J.
the significant factor in determining the relationship of the parties is the presence or absence of supervisory authority to control the method and the details of performance of the service being rendered, and the degree to which the principal may intervene to exercise such control.[29]