Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
In our June 29, 2010 Resolution, we noted that there are built-in elements of control specific to an insurance agency, which do not amount to the elements of control that characterize an employment relationship governed by the Labor Code. The Insurance Code provides definite parameters in the way an agent negotiates for the sale of the company's insurance products, his collection activities and his delivery of the insurance contract or policy.[6] In addition, the Civil Code defines an agent as a person who binds himself to do something in behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.[7] Article 1887 of the Civil Code also provides that in the execution of the agency, the agent shall act in accordance with the instructions of the principal.
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
[37] G.R. No. 119930, March 12, 1998, 287 SCRA 476, 489.
	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.
The second phase started in 1983 when Tongko was named Unit Manager in Manulife's Sales Agency Organization. In 1990, he became a Branch Manager. Six years later (or in 1996), Tongko became a Regional Sales Manager.[4]
	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
Tongko asserted that as Unit Manager, he was paid an annual over-rider not exceeding P50,000.00, regardless of production levels attained and exclusive of commissions and bonuses. He also claimed that as Regional Sales Manager, he was given a travel and entertainment allowance of P36,000.00 per year in addition to his overriding commissions; he was tasked with numerous administrative functions and supervisory authority over Manulife's employees, aside from merely selling policies and recruiting agents for Manulife; and he recommended and recruited insurance agents subject to vetting and approval by Manulife. He further alleges that he was assigned a definite place in the Manulife offices when he was not in the field - at the 3rd Floor, Manulife Center, 108 Tordesillas corner Gallardo Sts., Salcedo Village, Makati City - for which he never paid any rental. Manulife provided the office equipment he used, including tables, chairs, computers and printers (and even office stationery), and paid for the electricity, water and telephone bills. As Regional Sales Manager, Tongko additionally asserts that he was required to follow at least three codes of conduct.[9]
	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
Tongko bolstered his argument by citing Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. NLRC (4th Division)[7] and Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. NLRC,[8] which Tongko claimed to be similar to the instant case.
	GR No. 155207 2008-08-13	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA NACHURA, J.
It is true that petitioner herself admitted that she "was not, and [had] never been considered respondent's employee because the terms of works were arbitrarily decided upon by the respondent."[22] However, the employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.[23]
	GR NO. 157752 2005-03-16	SALLY MIGUEL v. JCT GROUP PANGANIBAN, J.
The test for determining an employer-employee relationship hinges on resolving who has the power to select employees, who pays for their wages, who has the power to dismiss them, and who exercises control in the methods and the results by which the work is accomplished.[20] The last factor, the "control test," is the most important.[21] In resolving the status of an MOA, the test for determining an employer-employee relationship has to be applied.[22]