This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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; | |||||
|
2005-04-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In Servidad v. NLRC et al.,[15] where effectively the probationary period was for one year, the Court stated:If the nature of the job did actually necessitate at least one year for the employee to acquire the requisite training and experience, still, the same could not be a valid probationary employment as it falls short of the requirement of Article 281 of the Labor Code. It was not brought to light that the petitioner was duly informed at the start of his employment, of the reasonable standards under which he could qualify as a regular employee. The rudiments of due process demand that an employee should be apprised beforehand of the conditions of his employment and the basis for his advancement. | |||||