Insular Life Vs Nlrc March 12, 1998 Case Digest

Myla Ruth N. Sara

Insular Life vs NLRC (March 12, 1998) FACTS: Petitioner entered into an agency contract with respondent delos Reyes authorizing the latter to solicit for life insurance and he would be paid compensation in the form of commissions. It contained the stipulation that no ER-EE relationship shall be create. However, delos Reyes was prohibited by petitioner from working for any other life insurance company and violation of this company was a ground of termination. Petitioner and private respondent entered into another contract where the latter was appointed as Acting Unit Manager under its office. One of the duties of delos Reyes is to supervise and coordinate the underwriters. It was similarly provided in the management contract that the relation of the acting unit manager and/or the agents of his unit to the company shall be that of independent contractor. Private respondent worked concurrently as agent and Acting Unit Manager until he was notified by petitioner that his services were terminated. So, he filed a complaint on the ground of illegal dismissal and for not paying him salaries and separation pay. ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists between Insular Life and delos Reyes HELD: Yes. Both petitioner and respondent NLRC treated the agency contract and the management contract entered into between petitioner and de los Reyes as contracts of agency. There exist major distinctions between the two arrangements. While the first has the earmarks of an agency contract, the second is far removed from the concepts of agency in that provided therein are conditionality that indicates an employer-employee relationship. Private respondent was appointed as Acting Unit Manager only upon recommendation of the District Manager. This indicates that private respondent was hired by petitioner because of the favorable endorsement of its duly authorized officer. Then, the very designation of the appointment of private respondent as “acting” unit manager obviously implies a temporary employment status which may be made permanent only upon compliance with company standards. On the matter of payment of wages, petitioner points out that respondent was compensated strictly on commission basis, the amount of which was totally dependent on his total output. But, the manager’s contract, speaks differently. Under the contract, de los Reyes must meet with the manpower and production requirements as Acting Unit Manager. As to the matter involving the power of dismissal and control by the employer, respondent’s duty to collect the company’s premiums using company receipts is further evidence of petitioner’s control over respondent. Thus, exclusivity of service, control of assignments and removal of agents under private respondent;s unit, collection of premiums, furnishing of company yfacilities and materials as well as capital described are but hallmarks of the management system in which herein private respondent worked. Private respondent de los Reyes was an employee of herein petitioner. Wherefore, petition of Insular Life is denied.