Lyzette Z.

Zaspa LlB 2-A

Gregorio V. Tongko vs. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. and Renato A.
Vergel De Dios
G.R. No. 167622 - June 29, 2010
Facts
Gregorio Tonko was employed by Manulife as an insurance agent wherein their contractual
relationship had two basic phases. The first or initial phase began on July 1, 1977, under a Career
Agents Agreement which states that he was an independent contractor and no employer-
employee relationship shall exist. The second phase started in 1983 when Tongko was named
Unit Manager in Manulifes Sales Agency Organization. In 1990, he became a Branch Manager
and in 1996, a Regional Sales Manager. Renato Vergel de Dios wrote Tongko a letter on
December 18, 2001, terminating his services because Tongko was the lowest performer on a per
Manager basis in terms of recruiting in 2000. Tongko responded by filing an illegal dismissal
complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission Arbitration Branch.
The labor arbiter decreed that no employer-employee relationship existed between the
parties. However, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiters decision on appeal. It found the existence
of an employer-employee relationship and concluded that Tongko had been illegally
dismissed. In the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, the appellate court found that
the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in its ruling and reverted to the labor arbiters decision
that no employer-employee relationship existed between Tongko and Manulife.
Issue: Whether or not there is a power of control by Manulife over Gregorio Tongko to
establish an employer-employee relationship?

Held
From jurisprudence, the first Insular Life case teaches us is that a commitment to abide by the
rules and regulations of an insurance company does not ipso facto make the insurance agent an
employee. Neither do guidelines somehow restrictive of the insurance agents conduct necessarily
indicate control as this term is defined in jurisprudence. Guidelines indicative of labor law
control, as the first Insular Life case 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 be employed in attaining the result, or of fixing the methodology and of binding or
restricting the party hired to the use of these means.
Under this legal situation, the only conclusion that can be made is that the absence of evidence
showing Manulifes control over Tongkos contractual duties points to the absence of any
employer-employee relationship between Tongko and Manulife. In the context of the established
evidence, Tongko remained an agent all along, although his subsequent duties made him a lead
agent with leadership role, he was nevertheless only an agent whose basic contract yields no
evidence of means-and-manner control.