CASE:

INVESTMENT PLANNING CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner vs.

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, respondent !ppe""ee#G. R. No. L$%$&'Nove()er
$*, $%+ FACTS: Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in business management and
sale of securities. It has two classes of agents who sell its investment plans: !.
Salaried emplo"ees who #eep definite hours and wor# under control and
supervision of the compan"$ and %!. &egisterd representatives who wor# on
commission basis. In '()$ the petitioner applied to the Social Securit" S"stem$ the
respondent$ for e*emption of the registered representatives from the compulsor"
coverage of the Social Securit" Act but later denied.ISS+E: ,hether or not the
petitioner-s$ registered representatives are emplo"ees within the meaning of the
Social Securit" Act &+/I01: 02. ,herefore the emplo"ee was defined b" the Social
Securit" Act as:
Any person who performs services for an employer in which either or both mental
and physical efforts are used and who receives compensation for such services,
where there is an employer-employee relationship: Provided, That a self-employed
professional shall be both employee and employer at the same time. (As amended
by Sec. 4, .A. !"#$ and Sec. !, P.%. &o. '" ", S-')*)+
The representatives are in realit" commission agents. The" cannot be considered
emplo"ees for the" were 3ust paid not b" the investor but in a form of a
commission$ their services ma" be terminated at an" certain time$ and there is no
element of control for the" do not devote their time e*clusivel" to or solel" for the
petitioner4 the time and the effort the" spend in their wor# depend upon entirel"
upon their own will and initiative.