Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The Dissent cites the cases of Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[18] and Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission[19] to support the allegation that Manulife exercised control over the petitioner as an employer.
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
To reiterate, guidelines indicative of labor law "control" do not merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining the result.[8] Tested by this norm, Manulife's instructions regarding the objectives and sales targets, in connection with the training and engagement of other agents, are among the directives that the principal may impose on the agent to achieve the assigned tasks. They are targeted results that Manulife wishes to attain through its agents. Manulife's codes of conduct, likewise, do not necessarily intrude into the insurance agents' means and manner of conducting their sales. Codes of conduct are norms or standards of behavior rather than employer directives into how specific tasks are to be done. These codes, as well as insurance industry rules and regulations, are not per se indicative of labor law control under our jurisprudence.[9]
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The dissent also erroneously cites eight other cases -- Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,[23] Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat,[24] Algon Engineering Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] Lazaro v. Social Security Commission,[27] Dealco Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] South Davao Development Company, Inc. v. Gamo,[29] and Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation.[30] The dissent cited these cases to support its allegation that labor laws and jurisprudence should be applied in cases, to the exclusion of other laws such as the Civil Code or the Insurance Code, even when the latter are also applicable.
	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The above changes can end at this point and they need not go any further. This, however, is entirely dependent upon you. But you have to understand that meeting corporate objectives by everyone is primary and will not be compromised. We are meeting tough challenges next year, and I would want everybody on board. Any resistance or holding back by anyone will be dealt with accordingly.[6]
	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.