Gregorio V.

Tongko
v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co.
GR No. 167622, 2008-11-07

Facts:
Manulife is a domestic corporation engaged in life insurance business. Vergel De Dios
was, during the period material, its President and Chief Executive Officer. Tongko started his
professional relationship with Manulife on by virtue of a Career Agent's Agreement. In the
Agreement, it is provided that it is understood and agreed 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.
In 1990, he became a Branch Manager. The problem started in 2001, when Manulife
instituted manpower development programs. Relative thereto, De Dios addressed a letter
regarding Metro North Sales Managers Meeting. Subsequently, De Dios wrote Tongko another
letter terminating Tongko's services, Tongko filed a Complaint with the NLRC against Manulife
for illegal dismissal.
Tongko, in a bid to establish an employer-employee relationship, alleged that De Dios
gave him specific directives on how to manage his area of responsibility. He further claimed
that Manulife exercised control over him that It was Manulife who hired, promoted and gave
various assignments to him. Manulife then filed a Motion to Dismiss in which it alleged that
Tongko is not its employee, and that it did not exercise "control" over him.
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of an employer-employee relationship.
Tongko appealed the arbiter's Decision to the NLRC which reversed the same and finding
Tongko to have been illegally dismissed.
Manulife filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC. Thus,
Manulife filed an appeal with the CA. Thereafter, the CA finding the absence of an employer-
employee relationship between the parties. Hence, Tongko filed this petition

Issue: Whether or not petitioner as insurance agent is an employee of respondent company.

Held: No. Based on the evidence on record, the petitioner’s occupation was to sell Manulife’s
insurance policies and products from 1977 until the termination of the career agent’s
agreement. The evidence also shows that through the years, Manulife permitted him to
exercise guiding authority over other agents who operate under their own agency agreements
with Manulife and whose commissions he shared. Under this scheme — an agreement that
pervades the insurance industry — petitioner in effect became a “lead agent” and his own
commissions increased as they included his share in the commissions of the other agents; he
also receives greater reimbursement for expenses and was allowed to use Manulife’s facilities.
His designation also changed from unit manager to branch manager and then to regional sales
manager, to reflect the increase in the number of agents he recruited and guided, as well as the
increase in the area where these agents operated.