G.R. No. 167622; January 25, 2011
GREGORIO V. TONGKO, Petitioner, vs. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC. and RENATO A. VERGEL DE DIOS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gregorio V. Tongko filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking to set aside the Supreme Court’s June 29, 2010 Resolution, which reversed its November 7, 2008 Decision. The June 29, 2010 Resolution affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that Tongko was an insurance agent, not an employee, of respondent The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. (Manulife). Tongko argued that for 19 years, he performed administrative functions and exercised supervisory authority over other agents and employees of Manulife, in addition to his insurance agent functions. During this period, he held designations such as Unit Manager, Branch Manager, and Regional Sales Manager, leading him to posit that he was both an insurance agent and an employee of Manulife. The relationship was governed by a Career Agent’s Agreement from its inception until termination. Evidence showed Tongko’s income as an agent, which included shares from the commissions of other agents he guided, was substantial, reaching amounts such as ₱8,003,180.38 in 2002.

ISSUE

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Gregorio V. Tongko and Manulife, such that Tongko was entitled to the rights and benefits of an employee under the Labor Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration, finding no error in its June 29, 2010 Resolution. The Court held that no employer-employee relationship existed. The primary element for establishing such a relationship is the employer’s control over the employee’s performance, not only as to the results but also as to the means and manner of achieving those results. The control exercised by Manulife over Tongko did not meet this labor law standard. The directives from Manulife, such as setting sales targets, production objectives, and recruitment and training programs, as well as prescribing Codes of Conduct, were characteristic of an insurance agency relationship as defined by the Insurance Code and the Civil Code law on agency. These controls were aimed at achieving specific results inherent in an insurance agency and did not extend to dictating the means and methods of how Tongko performed his tasks. The duties Tongko performed, including overseeing other agents, were consistent with his role as a “lead agent” sharing in the commissions of agents he recruited and guided, not indicative of employment. His changing designations and increased benefits reflected his progression and success within the agency framework but did not alter his fundamental status as an independent agent under the Career Agent’s Agreement. The Court also found no resulting inequity, as Tongko was amply compensated under the agency arrangement, and an award of employee benefits would be unjust absent proof of an employment relationship.