Jardin vs NLRC (2000) G.R.
119268 ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists between Sevilla and TWS
Facts:
Petitioners were drivers of private respondent,
Philjama InternationalInc., a domestic corporation engagedin the
operation of "Goodman Taxi." Petitioners used to drive private
respondent s taxicabs every other dayon a 24-hour work schedule
under the boundary system. Under this arrangement, the petitioners
earned anaverage of P400.00 daily.Nevertheless, private respondent
admittedly regularly deducts from petitioners daily earnings the
amount of P30.00 supposedly for the washing of the taxi units.
Believing that the deduction is illegal, petitioners decidedto form a
labor union to protect their rights and interests.Upon learning about
the plan of petitioners, private respondent refused to let petitioners
drive their taxicabswhen they reported for work on August 6, 1991,
and on succeeding days.Petitioners suspected that theywere singled
out because they were the leaders and active members of the
proposed union.Aggrieved,petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a
complaint against private respondent for unfair labor practice,
illegaldismissal and illegal deduction of washing fees.In a dated
August 31, 1992, the labor arbiter dismissed saidcomplaint for lack
of merit.
Issue:
WON the deduction for the washing of taxi units is illegal.
Held:
The deduction made for the car wash is not illegal.
In Five J Taxi vs. NLRC, the court views that it is not illegal in the
context of the law. We note that after a tour of duty, it is incumbent
upon the driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same clean
condition when hetook it out. Car washing after a tour of duty is
indeed a practice in the taxi industry and is in fact dictated byfair
play. Hence, the drivers are not entitled to reimbursement of
washing charges
Sevilla vs. CA
FACTS:
A contract by and between Noguera and Tourist World Service
(TWS), represented by Canilao, wherein TWSleased the premises
belonging to Noguera as branch office of TWS. When the branch
office was opened, it was runby appellant Sevilla payable to TWS by
any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Sevilla, 4%
was togo to Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the TWS.Later,
TWS was informed that Sevilla was connected with rival firm, and
since the branch office was losing, TWS considered closing down its
office.On January 3, 1962, the contract with appellee for the use of
the branch office premises was terminatedand while the effectivity
thereof was January 31, 1962, the appellees no longer used it.
Because of this, Canilao, thesecretary of TWS, went over to the
branch office, and finding the premises locked, he padlocked the
premises.When neither appellant Sevilla nor any of his employees
could enter, a complaint was filed by the appellantsagainst the
appellees. TWS insisted that Sevilla was a mere employee, being the
“branch manager” of its branch office and thatshe had no say on the
lease executed with the private respondent, Noguera.
HELD:
The records show that petitioner, Sevilla, was not subject to control
by the private respondent TWS. In thefirst place, under the contract
of lease, she had bound herself in solidum as and for rental
payments, anarrangement that would belie claims of a master-
servant relationship. That does not make her an employee of
TWS,since a true employee cannot be made to part with his own
money in pursuance of his employer’s business, orotherwise,
assume any liability thereof.In the second place, when the branch
office was opened, the same was run by the appellant Sevilla
payableto TWS by any airline for any fare brought in on the effort of
Sevilla. Thus, it cannot be said that Sevilla was underthe control of
TWS. Sevilla in pursuing the business, relied on her own
capabilities.It is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the
company’s payroll. For her efforts, she retained 4% incommissions
from airline bookings, the remaining 3% going to TWS. Unlike an
employee, who earns a fixed salary,she earned compensation in
fluctuating amount depending on her booking successes. The fact
that Sevilla had been designated “branch manager” does not make
her a TWS employee. Itappears that Sevilla is a bona fide travel
agent herself, and she acquired an interest in the business entrusted
toher. She also had assumed personal obligation for the operation
thereof, holding herself solidary liable for thepayment of
rentals.Wherefore, TWS and Canilao are jointly and severally liable
to indemnify the petitioner, Sevilla.
Ramos v. CA
Facts:
It was proven that her comatose state was due to the faulty
management of her airway by private respondents during the
anesthesia phase.
ISSUE: Whether or not a surgeon, an anesthesiologist and the
hospital should be made liable for comatose condition of patient
which arose from negligence in the performance of their
professional duties.
HELD: The Hippocratic Oath mandates physicians to give primordial
consideration to the health and welfare of their patients. The court
averred that if a doctor fails to live up to this precept, he is made
accountable for his acts. Respondents were made to pay actual
damages, moral damages exemplary and temperate damages
approximately P5,000,000.00.
Medical consultants and visiting physician are not employees of
the hospital . It is only in allocating responsibility incases of
medical negligence that they are treated as employees of the
hospital .
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 73887 December 21, 1989
GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
HONORATO JUDICO and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, respondents.
G.A. Fortun and Associates for petitioner.
Corsino B. Soco for private respondent.
PARAS J.:
Before us is a Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC, for brevity) dated
September 9, 1985 reversing the decision of Labor Arbiter Vito J.
Minoria, dated June 9, 1983, by 1) ordering petitioner insurance
company, Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (Grepalife, for
brevity) to recognize private respondent Honorato Judico, as its
regular employee as defined under Art. 281 of the Labor Code and
2) remanding the case to its origin for the determination of private
respondent Judico's money claims.
The records of the case show that Honorato Judico filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against Grepalife, a duly organized
insurance firm, before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No.
VII, Cebu City on August 27, 1982. Said complaint prayed for award
of money claims consisting of separation pay, unpaid salary and
13th month pay, refund of cash bond, moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC when a decision was rendered
by the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint on the ground that
the employer-employee relations did not exist between the parties
but ordered Grepalife to pay complainant the sum of Pl,000.00 by
reason of Christian Charity.
On appeal, said decision was reversed by the NLRC ruling that
complainant is a regular employee as defined under Art. 281 of the
Labor Code and declaring the appeal of Grepalife questioning the
legality of the payment of Pl,000.00 to complainant moot and
academic. Nevertheless, for the purpose of revoking the
supersedeas bond of said company it ruled that the Labor Arbiter
erred in awarding Pl,000.00 to complainant in the absence of any
legal or factual basis to support its payment.
Petitioner company moved to reconsider, which was denied, hence
this petition for review raising four legal issues to wit:
I. Whether the relationship between insurance agents and
their principal, the insurance company, is that of agent and
principal to be governed by the Insurance Code and the Civil Code
provisions on agency, or one of employer-employee, to be
governed by the Labor Code.
II. Whether insurance agents are entitled to the employee benefits
prescribed by the Labor Code.
III. Whether the public respondent NLRC has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of a controversy between insurance agent and the
insurance company, arising from their agency relations.
IV. Whether the public respondent acted correctly in setting aside
the decision of Labor Arbiter Vito J. Minoria and in ordering the
case remanded to said Labor Arbiter for further proceedings.(p.
159, Rollo)
The crux of these issues boil down to the question of whether or
not employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner
and private respondent.
Petitioner admits that on June 9, 1976, private respondent Judico
entered into an agreement of agency with petitioner Grepalife to
become a debit agent attached to the industrial life agency in Cebu
City. Petitioner defines a debit agent as "an insurance agent
selling/servicing industrial life plans and policy holders. Industrial
life plans are those whose premiums are payable either daily,
weekly or monthly and which are collectible by the debit agents at
the home or any place designated by the policy holder" (p. 156,
Rollo). Such admission is in line with the findings of public
respondent that as such debit agent, private respondent Judico had
definite work assignments including but not limited to collection of
premiums from policy holders and selling insurance to prospective
clients. Public respondent NLRC also found out that complainant
was initially paid P 200. 00 as allowance for thirteen (13) weeks
regardless of production and later a certain percentage
denominated as sales reserve of his total collections but not lesser
than P 200.00. Sometime in September 1981, complainant was
promoted to the position of Zone Supervisor and was given
additional (supervisor's) allowance fixed at P110.00 per week.
During the third week of November 1981, he was reverted to his
former position as debit agent but, for unknown reasons, not paid
so-called weekly sales reserve of at least P 200.00. Finally on June
28, 1982, complainant was dismissed by way of termination of his
agency contract.
 done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to
be accomplished.
Petitioner assails the findings of the NLRC that private respondent
is an employee of the former. Petitioner argues that Judico's
compensation was not based on any fixed number of hours he was
required to devote to the service of petitioner company but rather Applying the aforementioned test to the case at bar, We can
it was the production or result of his efforts or his work that was readily see that the element of control by the petitioner on Judico
being compensated and that the so-called allowance for the first was very much present. The record shows that petitioner Judico
thirteen weeks that Judico worked as debit agent, cannot be received a definite minimum amount per week as his wage known
construed as salary but as a subsidy or a way of assistance for as "sales reserve" wherein the failure to maintain the same would
transportation and meal expenses of a new debit agent during the bring him back to a beginner's employment with a fixed weekly
initial period of his training which was fixed for thirteen (13) wage of P 200.00 for thirteen weeks regardless of production. He
weeks. Stated otherwise, petitioner contends that Judico's was assigned a definite place in the office to work on when he is
compensation, in the form of commissions and bonuses, was based not in the field; and in addition to his canvassing work he was
on actual production, (insurance plans sold and premium burdened with the job of collection. In both cases he was required
collections). to make regular report to the company regarding these duties, and
for which an anemic performance would mean a dismissal.
Conversely faithful and productive service earned him a promotion
to Zone Supervisor with additional supervisor's allowance, a
Said contentions of petitioner are strongly rejected by private definite amount of P110.00 aside from the regular P 200.00 weekly
respondent. He maintains that he received a definite amount as his "allowance". Furthermore, his contract of services with petitioner
Wage known as "sales reserve" the failure to maintain the same is not for a piece of work nor for a definite period.
would bring him back to a beginner's employment with a fixed
weekly wage of P 200.00 regardless of production. He was
assigned a definite place in the office to work on when he is not in
the field; and in addition to canvassing and making regular reports, On the other hand, an ordinary commission insurance agent works
he was burdened with the job of collection and to make regular at his own volition or at his own leisure without fear of dismissal
weekly report thereto for which an anemic performance would from the company and short of committing acts detrimental to the
mean dismissal. He earned out of his faithful and productive business interest of the company or against the latter, whether he
service, a promotion to Zone Supervisor with additional produces or not is of no moment as his salary is based on his
supervisor's allowance, (a definite or fixed amount of P110.00) that production, his anemic performance or even dead result does not
he was dismissed primarily because of anemic performance and become a ground for dismissal. Whereas, in private respondent's
not because of the termination of the contract of agency case, the undisputed facts show that he was controlled by
substantiate the fact that he was indeed an employee of the petitioner insurance company not only as to the kind of work; the
petitioner and not an insurance agent in the ordinary meaning of amount of results, the kind of performance but also the power of
the term. dismissal. Undoubtedly, private respondent, by nature of his
position and work, had been a regular employee of petitioner and
is therefore entitled to the protection of the law and could not just
be terminated without valid and justifiable cause.
That private respondent Judico was an agent of the petitioner is
unquestionable. But, as We have held in Investment Planning Corp.
vs. SSS, 21 SCRA 294, an insurance company may have two classes
of agents who sell its insurance policies: (1) salaried employees Premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in
who keep definite hours and work under the control and toto.
supervision of the company; and (2) registered representatives who
work on commission basis. The agents who belong to the second
category are not required to report for work at anytime, they do
not have to devote their time exclusively to or work solely for the SO ORDERED.
company since the time and the effort they spend in their work
depend entirely upon their own will and initiative; they are not
required to account for their time nor submit a report of their
Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado,
activities; they shoulder their own selling expenses as well as
JJ ., concur.
transportation; and they are paid their commission based on a
certain percentage of their sales. One salient point in the
determination of employer-employee relationship which cannot be
easily ignored is the fact that the compensation that these agents
on commission received is not paid by the insurance company but
by the investor (or the person insured). After determining the
commission earned by an agent on his sales the agent directly
deducts it from the amount he received from the investor or the
person insured and turns over to the insurance company the
amount invested after such deduction is made. The test therefore is
whether the "employer" controls or has reserved the right to
control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work to be