LABOR CASES

Tongko v. Manufacturers Lfe Insurance Co. GR No. G.R. No. 167622 (Resolution)
(Phils.), Inc. Date: June 29, 2010
Ponente: VELASCO, JR., J.
DOCTRINE
If the specific rules and regulations that are enforced against insurance agents or managers are such that
would directly affect the means and methods by which such agents or managers would achieve the
objectives set by the insurance company, they are employees of the insurance company.
FACTS
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. (Manulife) is a domestic corporation engaged in life
insurance business. Renato A. Vergel De Dios was, during the period material, its President and Chief
Executive Officer. Gregorio V. Tongko started his professional relationship with Manulife on July 1,
1977 by virtue of a Career Agent's Agreement2 (Agreement) he executed with Manulife.

In 1983, Tongko was named as a Unit Manager in Manulife's Sales Agency Organization. In 1990, he
became a Branch Manager.

The problem started sometime in 2001, when Manulife instituted manpower development programs in the
regional sales management level. Relative thereto, De Dios addressed a letter dated November 6, 20014 to
Tongko regarding an October 18, 2001 Metro North Sales Managers Meeting.

Subsequently, De Dios wrote Tongko another letter dated December 18, 2001,5 terminating Tongko's
services,

Therefrom, Tongko filed a Complaint dated November 25, 2002 with the NLRC against Manulife for
illegal dismissal. The case, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 11-10330-02, was raffled to Labor Arbiter
Marita V. Padolina.

In the Complaint, Tongko, in a bid to establish an employer-employee relationship, alleged that De Dios
gave him specific directives on how to manage his area of responsibility in the latter's letter dated
November 6, 2001.

Tongko further claimed that his dismissal was without basis and that he was not afforded due process. He
also cited the Manulife Code of Conduct by which his actions were controlled by the company.

Manulife then filed a Position Paper with Motion to Dismiss dated February 27, 2003,9 in which it alleged
that Tongko is not its employee, and that it did not exercise "control" over him. Thus, Manulife claimed
that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE/S
I. Was there an employer-employee relationship between Manulife and Tongko? (YES)
II. If yes, was Manulife guilty of illegal dismissal? (YES)
RULING

Tongko Was An Employee of Manulife

The basic issue of whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case resolves itself into the question
of whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Manulife and Tongko. If no employer-
employee relationship existed between the two parties, then jurisdiction over the case properly lies with
the Regional Trial Court.

In the determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists between two parties, this Court
applies the four-fold test to determine the existence of the elements of such relationship.

If the specific rules and regulations that are enforced against insurance agents or managers are such that
would directly affect the means and methods by which such agents or managers would achieve the
objectives set by the insurance company, they are employees of the insurance company.

Tongko Was Illegally Dismissed

It must be reiterated that Manulife even failed to identify the specific acts by which Tongko's employment
was terminated much less support the same with substantial evidence. To repeat, mere conjectures cannot
work to deprive employees of their means of livelihood. Thus, it must be concluded that Tongko was
illegally dismissed.

Moreover, as to Manulife's failure to comply with the twin notice rule, it reasons that Tongko not being
its employee is not entitled to such notices. Since we have ruled that Tongko is its employee, however,
Manulife clearly failed to afford Tongko said notices.

For breach of the due process requirements, Manulife is liable to Tongko in the amount of PhP 30,000 as
indemnity in the form of nominal damages.