Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5 - Consulta V CA
5 - Consulta V CA
5 - Consulta V CA
FACTS:
This is a petition for review assailing the Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals reversing the Resolution of the NLRC which in turn affirmed
the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
Respondent Pamana Philippines, Inc. is engaged in health care
business. While petitioner Raquel Consulta was a Managing Associate of
Pamana with an area of operation within Metro Manila. Consulta was duly
authorized by Pamana to negotiate with the Federation of Filipino Civilian
Employees Association working at the United States Subic Naval Base for a
Health Care Plan for the FFCEA members. Pamana and the U.S. Naval Supply
Depot signed the FFCEA account. Consulta, claiming that Pamana did not pay
her commission for the FFCEA account, filed a complaint for unpaid wages or
commission against Pamana, its President Razul Requesto and its Executive Vic
The Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez ordered the respondents to pay
petitioner her unpaid commission to be computed as against actual transactions
between respondent Pamana and the contracting Department of U.S. Naval
Supply Depot upon presentation of pertinent document. Respondents appealed
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. It also denied the motion for
reconsideration of the respondents. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the
NLRC Decision and ruled that Consulta was a commission agent, not an
employee of Pamana. The appellate court also ruled that Consulta should have
litigated her claim for unpaid commission in an ordinary civil action. Hence,
Consulta’s recourse to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Consulta was an employee of Pamana.
2. Whether or not the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over Consulta’s claim
for unpaid commission.
HELD:
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
Consulta filed her action under Article 217(a) (6) of the Labor
Code. However, since there was no employer-employee relationship between
Pamana and Consulta, the Labor Arbiter should have dismissed Consulta’s claim
for unpaid commission. Consulta’s remedy is to file an ordinary civil action to
litigate her claim.
ADJUDICATION:
Petition was dismissed. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in
toto.