Tongko v. Manufacturers LIfe Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc.

(570 SCRA 503)

FACTS: The contractual relationship between Tongko and Manulife had two basic phases. The first phase began on July 1, 1977, under a Career
Agent’s Agreement, which provided that “the Agent is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted as
creating an employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Agent.”
The second phase started in 1983 when Tongko was named Unit Manager in Manulife’s Sales Agency Organization. In 1990, he became a
Branch Manager. In 1996), Tongko became a Regional Sales Manager. Tongko’s gross earnings consisted of commissions, persistency income, and
management overrides. Since the beginning, Tongko consistently declared himself self-employed in his income tax returns. Under oath, he declared his
gross business income and deducted his business expenses to arrive at his taxable business income.
Respondent Renato Vergel de Dios, sales manager, wrote Tongko a letter dated November 6, 2001 on concerns that were brought up during
the Metro North Sales Managers Meeting, expressing dissatisfaction of Tongko’s performance in their agent recruiting business, which resulted in some
changes on how Tongko would conduct his duties, including that Tongko hire at his expense a competent assistant to unload him of routine tasks, which
he had been complaining to be too taxing for him.
On December 18, 2001, de Dios wrote Tongko another letter which served as notice of termination of his Agency Agreement with the company
effective fifteen days from the date of the letter. Tongko filed an illegal dismissal complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
alleging that 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.
The NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s decision on appeal; it found the existence of an employer-employee relationship and concluded that
Tongko had been illegally dismissed.
The Court of Appeals found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in its ruling and reverted to the labor arbiter’s decision that no
employer-employee relationship existed between Tongko and Manulife.

ISSUE: Is there an employer-employee relationship between Tongko and Manulife?

.
HELD: NO. In the determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists between 2 parties, this court applies the four-fold test to
determine the existence of the elements of such relationship. Jurisprudence is firmly settled that whenever the existence of an employment relationship
is in dispute, four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power
of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. IT is the so-called “control test” which constitutes the most important index
of existence of the employer-employee relationship that 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 done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Stated otherwise, an employer-
employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved but
also the means to be used in reaching such end. In the case at bar, 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. Claimant clearly failed to substantiate his claim of employment relationship by the
quantum of evidence the Labor Code requires.
Tongko’s failure to comply with the guidelines of de Dios’ letter, as a ground for termination of Tongko’s agency, 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.

Dispositive: We REVERSE our Decision of November 7, 2008, GRANT Manulife’s motion for reconsideration and, accordingly, DISMISS
Tongko’s petition.

Alcatel vs Relos
Begino vs ABS CBN

Respondent ABS-CBN, through Respondent Villafuerte, engaged the services of Petitioners as cameramen, editors or
reporters for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners signed regularly renewed Talent Contracts (3 months - 1 year) and Project
Assignment Forms which detailed the duration, budget and daily technical requirements of a particular project.
Petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items for subsequent daily airings in Respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol
Program.

The Talent Contract has an exclusivity clause and provides that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to
establish an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

Petitioners filed against Respondents a complaint for regularization before the NLRC's Arbitration branch.

In support of their complaint, Petitioners claimed that they worked under the direct control of Respondent Villafuerte -
they were mandated to wear company IDs, they were provided the necessary equipment, they were informed about the
news to be covered the following day, and they were bound by the company’s policy on attendance and punctuality.

Respondents countered that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and Project Assignment Forms, Petitioners were hired
as talents to act as reporters, editors and/or cameramen. Respondents further claimed they never imposed control as
to how Petitioners discharged their duties. At most, they were briefed regarding the general requirements of the project
to be executed.

While the case was pending, Petitioners contracts were terminated, prompting the latter to file a second complaint for
illegal dismissal.

The Arbitration Branch ruled that Petitioners were regular employees, and ordered Respondents to reinstate the
Petitioners.

The NLRC affirmed the ruling, but the CA overturned the decision.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioners are regular employees of Respondents.

RULING: Yes.

Of the criteria to determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship, the so-called "control test" is
generally regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the said relationship.

Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the person for whom the services are
performed reserves the right to control not only the end result but also the manner and means utilized to achieve the
same.

Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the terms and
condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN.

As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that Petitioners were subject to the control and supervision of
Respondents which provided them with the equipment essential for the discharge of their functions. The exclusivity
clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contract were likewise indicative of Respondents' control over them, however
obliquely worded.

Also,the presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when
the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of
such employee and not an independent contractor.

Zialcita vs PAL

FACTS: Zialcita is a stewardess of PAL. She was fired from work because she had gotten married. PAL argued and cited
its policy that stewardesses must be single. The policy also states that subsequent marriage of a stewardess shall
automatically terminate employment.

Zialcita anchored on Article 136 of the Labor Code. PAL sought refuge from Article 132.

Article 132 provides, "Article 132. Facilities for women. The Secretary of Labor and Employment shall establish
standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees. In appropriate cases, he shall, by regulations,
require any employer to: To determine appropriate minimum age and other standards for retirement or termination in
special occupations such as those of flight attendants and the like."
Article 136 provides, "Article 136. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a
condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate
expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually
dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage."

ISSUE:

Was Zialcita's termination proper?

HELD: The termination was improper. First of all, during the time Zialcita was terminated, no regulation had yet been
issued by the Secretary of Labor to implement Article 132. Second, even assuming that the Secretary of Labor had
already issued such a regulation and to the effect that stewardesses should remain single, such would be in violation of
Article 136 of the Labor Code.

Article 136's protection of women is broader and more powerful than the regulation provided under Article 132.

Duncan vs Galaxo Welcome Philippines Inc.

FACTS: Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by respondent Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) as
medical representative on October 24, 1995, after Tecson had undergone training and orientation.

Thereafter, Tecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates, among others, that he agrees to study and abide
by existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity
with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and should management find that such relationship
poses a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company. Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides these
conditions; that otherwise, the management and the employee will explore the possibility of a “transfer to another
department in a non-counterchecking position” or preparation for employment outside the company after six months.

Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo’s products in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area.
Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, an employee of Astra Pharmaceuticals3(Astra),
a competitor of Glaxo. Bettsy was Astra’s Branch Coordinator in Albay. She supervised the district managers and
medical representatives of her company and prepared marketing strategies for Astra in that area.
Even before they got married, Tecson received several reminders from his District Manager regarding the conflict of
interest which his relationship with Bettsy might engender. Still, love prevailed, and Tecson married Bettsy in
September 1998.

Tecson’s superior reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of them would resign from their jobs.
Tecson requested for time to comply with the company policy against entering into a relationship with an employee of a
competitor company. He explained that Astra, Bettsy’s employer, was planning to merge with Zeneca, another drug
company; and Bettsy was planning to avail of the redundancy package to be offered by Astra.

Tecson again requested for more time resolve the problem. Thereafter, Tecson applied for a transfer in Glaxo’s milk
division, thinking that since Astra did not have a milk division, the potential conflict of interest would be eliminated. His
application was denied in view of Glaxo’s “least-movement-possible” policy.

Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. Tecson asked Glaxo to reconsider
its decision, but his request was denied. Tecson defied the transfer order and continued acting as medical
representative in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASE: Because the parties failed to resolve the issue at the grievance machinery level, they
submitted the matter for voluntary arbitration, but Tecson declined the offer. On November 15, 2000, the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered its Decision declaring as valid Glaxo’s policy on relationships
between its employees and persons employed with competitor companies, and affirming Glaxo’s right to transfer
Tecson to another sales territory.

CA sustained; MR denied.

Petitioner’s Contention: that Glaxo’s policy against employees marrying employees of competitor companies violates
the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it creates invalid distinctions among employees on account only
of marriage. They claim that the policy restricts the employees’ right to marry; that Tecson was constructively
dismissed

GLAXO argues: that the company policy prohibiting its employees from having a relationship with and/or marrying an
employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of its management prerogatives and does not violate the equal
protection clause;
The policy is also aimed at preventing a competitor company from gaining access to its secrets, procedures and
policies; that Tecson can no longer question the assailed company policy because when he signed his contract of
employment, he was aware that such policy was stipulated therein.

ISSUE: WON Glaxo’s policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor companies is valid

HELD: The Court finds no merit in the petition.

Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential
programs and information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the highly
competitive pharmaceutical industry.

The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s
employees is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests
of the company. In laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the
possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.

That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied. No less than the Constitution
recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy to protect its right to reasonable returns on
investments and to expansion and growth.

Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and the protection of labor, it
does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that
management has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.21

EQUAL-PROTECTION: Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition against relationships between its employees and
those of competitor companies. Its employees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their own
choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and the company
that may arise out of such relationships.

Moreover, records show that Glaxo gave Tecson several chances to eliminate the conflict of interest brought about by
his relationship with Bettsy.
PETITION DENIED.

Domingo vs Rayala

Facts:

Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual
harassment against Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.

She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched her shoulder, part of her neck then tickled her ears. Rayala
argued that his acts does not constitute sexual harassment because for it to exist, there must be a demand, request or
requirement of sexual favor.

Issue:

Whether or not Rayala commit sexual harassment.

Rulings:

Yes.

The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual
harassment in this wise:

Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. – Work, education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor,
coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or
training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:

(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or
privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in a
way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;

. (2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or

. (3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.

even if we were to test Rayala’s acts strictly by the standards set in Section 3, RA 7877, he would still be
administratively liable. It is true that this provision calls for a “demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor.” But it
is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or
written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing
Domingo’s shoulders, running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations with
her, giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making statements with
unmistakable sexual overtones – all these acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a
sexual favor.

Aquino vs Acosta