BREAKDOWN OF FACTS:

Relationship of CRC and sales agents – There is no employee employer relationship.

Legal basis: G.R. No. 195190 July 28, 2014 ROYALE HOMES MARKETING
CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. FIDEL P. ALCANTARA [deceased], substituted by his
heirs, Respondent.

Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship.  A person who

1âwphi1

performs work for another and is subjected to its rules, regulations, and code of ethics does not
necessarily become an employee.34 As long as the level of control does not interfere with the
means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks, the rules imposed by the hiring party
on the hired party do not amount to the labor law concept of control that is indicative of
employer-employee relationship. In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations
Commission35 it was pronounced that:

Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be
employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the
party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no
employeremployee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the means
used to achieve it. x x x36

In this case, the Court agrees with Royale Homes that the rules, regulations, code of ethics, and
periodic evaluation alluded to byAlcantara do not involve control over the means and methods
by which he was to performhis job. Understandably, Royale Homes has to fix the price, impose
requirements on prospective buyers, and lay down the terms and conditionsof the sale,
including the mode of payment, which the independent contractors must follow. It is also
necessary for Royale Homes to allocateits inventories among its independent contractors,
determine who has priority in selling the same, grant commission or allowance based on
predetermined criteria, and regularly monitor the result of their marketing and sales efforts. But
tothe mind of this Court, these do not pertain to the means and methods of how Alcantara was
to perform and accomplish his task oif soliciting sales. They do not dictate upon him the details
of how he would solicit sales or the manner as to how he would transact business with
prospective clients. In Tongko, this Court held that guidelines or rules and regulations that do
notpertain to the means or methodsto be employed in attaining the result are not indicative of
control as understood inlabor law. Thus:

From jurisprudence, an important lesson that the first Insular Lifecase teaches us is that a
commitment to abide by the rules and regulations of an insurance company does not ipso
factomake the insurance agent an employee. Neither do guidelines somehow restrictive of the
insurance agent’s conduct necessarily indicate "control" as this term is defined in jurisprudence.
Guidelines indicative of labor law "control," as the first Insular Lifecase tells us, should not
merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must
have the nature of dictating the means or methods to beemployed in attaining the result, or of
fixing the methodology and of binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these means.In
fact, results-wise, the principal can impose production quotas and can determine how many
agents, with specific territories, ought to be employed to achieve the company’s objectives.
These are management policy decisions that the labor law element of control cannot reach. Our
ruling in these respects in the first Insular Lifecase was practically reiterated in Carungcong.
Thus, as will be shown more fully below, Manulife’s codes of conduct, all of which do not intrude
into the insurance agents’ means and manner of conducting their sales and only control them as
to the desired results and Insurance Code norms, cannot be used as basis for a finding that the
labor law concept of control existed between Manulife and Tongko.37 (Emphases in the original)

As the party claiming the existence of employer-employee relationship, it behoved upon

Alcantara to prove the elements thereof, particularly Royale Homes’ power of control over the
means and methods of accomplishing the work.38 He, however, failed to cite specificrules,
regulations or codes of ethics that supposedly imposed control on his means and methods of
soliciting sales and dealing with prospective clients. On the other hand, this case is replete with
instances that negate the element of control and the existence of employer-employee
relationship. Notably, Alcantara was not required to observe definite working hours. 39 Except for
soliciting sales, RoyaleHomes did not assign other tasks to him. He had full control over the
means and methods of accomplishing his tasks as he can "solicit sales at any time and by any
manner which [he may] deem appropriate and necessary." He performed his tasks on his own
account free from the control and direction of Royale Homes in all matters connected therewith,
except as to the results thereof.40

1. CRC is a corporation engaged in real estate business

2. CRC employed 50 sales agents who are paid on commission of not exceeding Php
10,000.00 per month if they can reach their quota of Php 500,000.00.
3. The sales agents work
a. in field; and
b. make their time in and out through a program installed in their cellular phones
called “Time Doctor”.
4. CRC monitors all their activities in the field and areas of assignment like malls and
supermarkets.

Position paper for petitioner employees: Legal Basis: Control Test (Jurisprudence)

Labor Organization

1. In January 2020, sales agents formed and organized a labor organization named Union
of Sales Agents CRC (USA CRC) supported by
a. 25 rank and file employees; and
b. 2 supervisors (Okay – p.196)
2. They registered the same before the BLR of DOLE. (Registered under the BLR – a
legitimate organization with rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.)

Page 189, Rights of the Legitimate Labor Organization

Art 251

Certification Election

A certification election is the process of determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
the employees in an appropriate bargaining unity for purposes of collective bargaining.

1. On February 14, 2020, USA CRC filed a petition for certification election and the same
was approved by BLR.
 2. The certification election was scheduled on March 15, 2020.

Unfair Labor Practice

1. Prior to March 15, 2020, Big Boy, the president of USA CRC was terminated because of
his union leadership.
2. Then, twenty members withdrew their union membership for fear of being terminated by
the CRC.

Article 293 of the Labor Code; Right to Self-Organization or Labor Organization for collective
bargaining.

p. 243

Totality of Conduct Rule

Certification Election (Procedure and Qualification of Voters)

No valid certification election was held (Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as "the

situation between the labor and the management of the company where there is failure in the
collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a stalemate" - SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND
DIVISION, AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION (SMCEU) —
PTGWO, respondents.)

1. Certification election was held and the USA CRC got 28 votes and was proclaimed as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in CRC.

p. 201

(Election Rules and Procedure – Under Rule XI, D.O. No. 40-03

Voting List and Voters – Section 5. Qualifications of voters; inclusion-exclusion

All members who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented
by the petitioner at the time of the issuance of the order granting the conduct of a certification
election shall be eligible to vote…)

p.2 16 – DHL v Buklod case

Unfair Labor Practice and Collective Bargaining

1. The union sent a notice or demand to bargain to the CRC and demanded for the
company’s financial statement of the year 2019.
2. The company refused to give the financial statement – instead, terminated all of
the officers of the union because of their union activities.

Notice to Strike
 1. The USA CRC filed a notice to strike with the NCMB and after complying with all the
requirements of strike, it launched a strike on April 2, 2020.
2. During the strike, CRC employed strike breakers and started creating trouble resulting to
injuries of striking workers.

Deadlock - Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as "the situation between the labor and

the management of the company where there is failure in the collective bargaining negotiations
resulting in a stalemate" 

UNION OF SALES AGENTS CRC (USA CRC):

USA CRC filed before the Labor Arbiter complaints for unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal, and asking for the following reliefs: reinstatement, back wages (for all employees
including those who did not join the strike), rest day pay, Service Incentive Leave and Attorney’s
Fees.monitor

1. ULP
2. Illegal Dismissal
3. Certification Election
4. Notice to Strike – Strikebreakers (Art 279[c] No employer shall use or employ any strike
breaker nor shall any person be employed as a strike breaker – p.270, book)

CZAR REALTY CORPORATION (CRC):

1. The complainants are not its employees for they are field agents and are paid on
commission basis and it exercises no control over the conduct of their work except the
monthly quota.
2. It further argued that the certification of the union was void because at the time of
certification election, its members were not anymore majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit and the act of joining a supervisory employee makes the union illegal.
3. CRC also counter claimed that the strike was illegal because the union members
committed illegal and prohibited acts during the strike and should warrant the termination
of all the union officers. Notice of Strike – Nature and Requisites