You are on page 1of 1

Grepalife

vs.
Judico and NLRC
G.R. No. 73887 December 21, 1989
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/25/14 8:25:35 PM
Finish: 6/25/14 9:28:39 PM
Nature of the Case
A petition for certiorari seeking reversal of the NLRCs order that petitioner is a regular employee.

Facts
Private respondent worked as an insurance agent of petitioner, known as debit agent
1
, under an agreement of agency. Private respondent
filed a case of illegal dismissal against petitioner with money claims, in which the labor arbiter established there was no employer employee
relationship but nevertheless awarded P 1,000 out of Christian Charity. On appeal by both parties, NLRC ruled that private respondent was a
regular employee, but nevertheless ruled that the labor arbiter erred in awarding P1,000. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but the same was
denied. Public respondent found that as debit agent, private respondent had definite work assignments including but not limited to collection
of premiums from policy holders and selling insurance to prospective clients. Furthermore, private respondent was paid an initial sum of
P200 as his 13 week allowance where he was later promoted as zone supervisor enabling private respondent to have an additional
supervisors allowance of P 110 per week. Private respondent was however demoted during the third week of November 1981, and was
finally dismissed on 28 June 1982. Petitioner contends no E2e relationship exists because respondent was not required to render service
within a fix number of hours and that his initial 13 week allowance cannot be construed as a salary but a subsidy to cover the costs of his
transportation and meal expenses when he sells insurance premiums. Stated otherwise, that private respondents compensation was in the
form of commissions and bonuses. Private respondent refutes petitioners claim invoking that: (1) he receives a definite amount as his wage
known as sales reserve; (2) that his failure to maintain his sales reserve would bring him back to the status of a beginners employment at a
fixed wage of P200 regardless of production outputs; (3) that he was assigned a definite place to work in the office when he is not out in the
field; and (4) in addition to making canvasses and regular reports, he was tasked to collect and make regular weekly reports so that failure to
do so would lead to his dismissal. Thus, this petition for certiorari.

Issue(s)
(1). Is private respondent a regular employee?

Held
(1). Yes.

There is no doubt private respondent is an insurance agent. However, there are two types of insurance agents: (1) salaried
employees who have definite hours of work; and (2) registered representatives who work on commission basis. The second class:
(a) are not required to work definite hours; (b) do not devote their time solely for the company as the efforts they spend on their
work is dependent on their own will and initiative; (c) they are not required to account for their time nor submit a report of their
activities; (d) they shoulder their own selling expenses including transportation; and (e) they are paid on commissions based on a
percentage of their sales. A focal point is the determination that such an agent is paid by the investor (the insured) after a
percentage of his commission has been computed and turned over to the insurance company.

On the other hand, the element of control was evident in the four contentions of the private respondent. Furthermore, his contract of
services with petitioner is not for a piece of work nor for a definite period. The power of dismissal was also evident in his fourth
contention. Undoubtedly, private respondent, by nature of his position and work, has been a regular employee and cannot be
dismissed without valid and justifiable cause.




"
#$ %$&'(#$)* #+*$, &*--%$+.&*(/%)%$+ %$0'&,(%#- -%1* 2-#$& #$0 23-%)4 53-0*(&6 7$0'&,(%#- -%1* 2-#$& #(* ,53&* 853&* 2(*9%'9& #(* 2#4#:-* *%,5*( 0#%-4; 8**<-4 3( 93$,5-4 #$0 85%)5 #(*