FREAH GENICE A.

TOLOSA LLB-1C LABOR LAW 1

July 12, 2016

Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance & de Dios

FACTS: Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. 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 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. He was thereafter promoted to Regional Manager. The
problem started sometime in 2001, when Manulife instituted manpower development programs
in the regional sales management level. The MANULIFE gave him a notice of termination in his
agency agreement as effective fifteen days from the date of the letter.
Therefrom, Tongko filed a Complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) against Manulife for illegal dismissal.
NLRC rendered Tongko to have been illegally dismissed. In the said decision, the court
said that MANULIFE gave directives or orders that are intended to directly affect complainant's
authority and manner of carrying out his functions as Regional Sales Manager.
Thus, Manulife filed an appeal with the CA. CA issued the assailed Decision dated March
29, 2005, finding the absence of an employer- employee relationship between the parties and
deeming the NLRC with no jurisdiction over the case. The CA arrived at this conclusion while
again applying the four-fold test. The CA found that Manulife did not exercise control over
Tongko that would render the latter an employee of Manulife.
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of
Tongko. However, the Supreme Court issued another Resolution dated June 29, 2010, reversing
its decision. Tongko filed a motion for reconsideration, which is now the subject of the instant
case.
ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court erred in issuing the June 29, 2010 resolution, reversing its
earlier
decision
that
an
employer-employee
relationship
existed.
HELD: The Supreme Court finds no reason to reverse the June 29, 2010 decision. Control over
the performance of the task of one providing service both with respect to the means and manner,
and the results of the service is the primary element in determining whether an employment
relationship exists. The Supreme Court ruled petitioners Motion against his favor since he failed
to show that the control Manulife exercised over him was the control required to exist in an
employer-employee relationship; Manulifes control fell short of this norm and carried only the
characteristic of the relationship between an insurance company and its agents, as defined by the
Insurance Code and by the law of agency under the Civil Code.
Control do not merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual
relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in
attaining the result. Manulifes instructions regarding the objectives and sales targets are the
targeted results that Manulife wishes to attain through its agents and it did not intrude into the
insurance agents means and manner of conducting their sales.