GREGORIO V. TONGKO, Petitioner, vs. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC. and RENATO A. VERGEL DE DIOS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 167622 January 25, 2011
Principle: In an agency relationship, the principal is allowed to have an element of control over his agent without intruding to the labor law concept of control for purpose of employment.
Facts:
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. (Manulife) 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 (Agreement) he executed with Manulife. 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. The Company may terminate this Agreement for any breach or violation of any of the provisions hereof by the Agent by giving written notice to the Agent within fifteen (15) days from the time of the discovery of the breach. No waiver, extinguishment, abandonment, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to terminate this Agreement by the Company shall be construed for any previous failure to exercise its right under any provision of this Agreement.
Either of the parties hereto may likewise terminate his Agreement at any time without cause, by giving to the other party fifteen (15) days’ notice in writing. In 1983, Tongko was named as a Unit Manager in Manulife's Sales Agency Organization.In 1990, he became a Branch Manager. As the CA found, Tongko's gross earnings from his work at Manulife, consisting of commissions, persistency income, and management overrides. The problem started sometime in 2001, when Manulife instituted manpower development programs in the regional sales management level. Relative thereto, De Dios addressed a letter dated November 6, 2001 to Tongko regarding an October 18, 2001 Metro North Sales Managers Meeting. Stating that Tongko’s Region was the lowest performer (on a per Manager basis) in terms of recruiting in 2000 and, as of today, continues to remain one of the laggards in this area.
Other issues were: "Some Managers are unhappy with their earnings and would want to revert to the position of agents." And "Sales Managers are doing what the company asks them to do but, in the process, they earn less." Tongko was then terminated. Therefrom, Tongko filed a Complaint dated November 25, 2002 with the NLRC against Manulife for illegal dismissal in the Complaint. In a Decision dated April 15, 2004, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of an employer-employee relationship. The NLRC's First Division, while finding an employer-employee relationship between Manulife and Tongko applying the four-fold test, held Manulife liable for illegal dismissal. Thus, Manulife filed an appeal with the CA. Thereafter, the 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.
Issues:
1.) Whether or not Tongko was an employee of Manulife; 2.) Whether or not Tongko was illegally dismissed.
Ruling:
On the first Issue:
Yes. In the instant case, Manulife had the power of control over Tongko that would make him its employee. Several factors contribute to this conclusion. In the Agreement dated July 1, 1977 executed between Tongko and Manulife, it is provided that: The Agent hereby agrees to comply with all regulations and requirements of the Company as herein provided as well as maintain a standard of knowledge and competency in the sale of the Company's products which satisfies those set by the Company and sufficiently meets the volume of new business required of Production Club membership.Under this provision, an agent of Manulife must comply with three (3) requirements: (1) compliance with the regulations and requirements of the company; (2) maintenance of a level of knowledge of the company's products that is satisfactory to the company; and (3) compliance with a quota of new businesses. Among the company regulations of Manulife are the different codes of conduct such as the Agent Code of Conduct, Manulife Financial Code of Conduct, and Manulife Financial Code of Conduct Agreement, which demonstrate the power of control exercised by the company over Tongko. The fact that Tongko was obliged to obey and comply with the codes of conduct was not disowned by respondents. Thus, with the company regulations and requirements alone, the fact that Tongko was an employee of Manulife may already be established. Certainly, these requirements controlled the means and methods by which Tongko was to achieve the company's goals.
More importantly, Manulife's evidence establishes the fact that Tongko was tasked to perform administrative duties that establishes his employment with Manulife. Additionally, it must be pointed out that the fact that Tongko was tasked with recruiting a certain number of agents, in addition to his other administrative functions, leads to no other conclusion that he was an employee of Manulife.
On the second Issue:
In its Petition for Certiorari dated January 7, 2005[26] filed before the CA, Manulife argued that even if Tongko is considered as its employee, his employment was validly terminated on the ground of gross and habitual neglect of duties, inefficiency, as well as willful disobedience of the lawful orders of Manulife. Manulife stated: In the instant case, private respondent, despite the written reminder from Mr. De Dios refused to shape up and altogether disregarded the latter's advice resulting in his laggard performance clearly indicative of his willful disobedience of the lawful orders of his superior. As private respondent has patently failed to perform a very fundamental duty, and that is to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders and instructions of the Company, as well as gross failure to reach at least minimum quota, the termination of his engagement from Manulife is highly warranted and therefore, there is no illegal dismissal to speak of. It is readily evident from the above-quoted portions of Manulife's petition that it failed to cite a single iota of evidence to support its claims. Manulife did not even point out which order or rule that Tongko disobeyed.
More importantly, Manulife did not point out the specific acts that Tongko was guilty of that would constitute gross and habitual neglect of duty or disobedience. Manulife merely cited Tongko's alleged "laggard performance," without substantiating such claim, and equated the same to disobedience and neglect of duty. Apropos thereto, Art. 277, par. (b), of the Labor Code mandates in explicit terms that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests on the employer. Failure to discharge this evidential burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal. The Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the services of an employee for just cause and this must be supported by substantial evidence. The settled rule in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in determining the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee, and not even a preponderance of evidence is necessary as substantial evidence is considered sufficient. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. Here, Manulife failed to overcome such burden of proof. It must be reiterated that Manulife even failed to identify the specific acts by which Tongko's employment was terminated much less support the same with substantial evidence.
To repeat, mere conjectures cannot work to deprive employees of their means of livelihood. Thus, it must be concluded that Tongko was illegally dismissed. Moreover, as to Manulife's failure to comply with the twin notice rule, it reasons that Tongko not being its employee is not entitled to such notices. Since we have ruled that Tongko is its employee, however, Manulife clearly failed to afford Tongko said notices. Thus, on this ground too, Manulife is guilty of illegal dismissal.