G.R. No.

167622               June 29, 2010

GREGORIO V. TONGKO, Petitioner, 
vs.
THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC. and RENATO A.
VERGEL DE DIOS,Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Gregorio Tongko entered into a Career Agent’s Agreement with respondent Manulife.
As an agent, his duties consisted of, among others, canvassing for applications for group policies
and other products of the company. Subsequently, Tongko was named unit manager, branch
manager, and regional sales manager. But when he failed to comply with policies of Manulife,
his Agency Agreement was terminated.

Tongko filed a complaint with the NLRC Arbitration Branch. He essentially alleged – despite the
clear terms of the letter terminating his Agency Agreement – that he was Manulife’s employee
before he was illegally dismissed. The labor arbiter decreed that no employer-employee
relationship existed between the parties. However, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s
decision on appeal. When the case went to the CA, it sustained the labor Arbiter’s decision.
Manulife asserts that the labor tribunals have no jurisdiction over Tongko’s claim as he was not
its employee as characterized in the four-fold test.

ISSUE:

Has the labor arbiter jurisdiction over his complaint for illegal dismissal?

HELD:

No. Given the anemic state of the evidence, particularly on the requisite confluence of the
factors that would show an employer-employee relationship, the court cannot conclusively find
that the relationship exists in the present case, even if such relationship only refers to Tongko’s
additional functions. While a rough deduction can be made, the answer will not be fully
supported by the substantial evidence needed. Under this legal situation, the only conclusion that
can be made is that the absence of evidence showing Manulife’s control over Tongko’s
contractual duties points to the absence of any employer-employee relationship between Tongko
and Manulife.

In the context of the established evidence, Tongko remained an agent all along; although his
subsequent duties made him a lead agent with leadership role, he was nevertheless only an agent
whose basic contract yields no evidence of means-and-manner control.

In the case, it is a matter that the labor tribunals cannot rule upon in the absence of an employer-
employee relationship. Jurisdiction over the matter belongs to the courts applying the laws of
insurance, agency and contracts.