G.R. No.

167622

June 29, 2010

GREGORIO V. TONGKO, Petitioner, vs. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC. and RENATO A. VERGEL DE DIOS,Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner Gregorio Tongko entered into a Career Agents Agreement with respondent Manulife. As an agent, his duties consisted of, among others, canvassing for applications for group policies and other products of the company. Subsequently, Tongko was named unit manager, branch manager, and regional sales manager. But when he failed to comply with policies of Manulife, his Agency Agreement was terminated. Tongko filed a complaint with the NLRC Arbitration Branch. He essentially alleged despite the clear terms of the letter terminating his Agency Agreement that he was Manulifes employee before he was illegally dismissed. The labor arbiter decreed that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. However, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiters decision on appeal. When the case went to the CA, it sustained the labor Arbiters decision. Manulife asserts that the labor tribunals have no jurisdiction over Tongkos claim as he was not its employee as characterized in the four-fold test. ISSUE: Has the labor arbiter jurisdiction over his complaint for illegal dismissal? HELD: No. Given the anemic state of the evidence, particularly on the requisite confluence of the factors that would show an employer-employee relationship, the court cannot conclusively find that the relationship exists in the present case, even if such relationship only refers to Tongkos additional functions. While a rough deduction can be made, the answer will not be fully supported by the substantial evidence needed.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. In the case, it is a matter that the labor tribunals cannot rule upon in the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Jurisdiction over the matter belongs to the courts applying the laws of insurance, agency and contracts.