GR 145443; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145443. March 18, 2005
RAQUEL P. CONSULTA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PAMANA PHILIPPINES, INC., RAZUL Z. REQUESTO, and ALETA TOLENTINO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Raquel P. Consulta was appointed as a Managing Associate by respondent Pamana Philippines, Inc., a health care company. Her appointment letter, effective December 1, 1987, explicitly stated that the relationship was “on a non-employer-employee relationship basis.” Her principal duty was to organize and manage a sales division, recruit agents, and achieve sales targets. She was compensated solely through commissions based on membership and medical fees, with no fixed salary. In 1987, Consulta successfully negotiated a group health care plan with the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association (FFCEA) for U.S. Naval Base personnel, for which Pamana issued a certification authorizing her to negotiate on its behalf.
After the contract was signed in March 1988, Consulta claimed Pamana failed to pay her commissions for the FFCEA account. She filed a complaint for unpaid wages/commissions before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). However, the Court of Appeals reversed these rulings.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Consulta and Pamana; and (2) Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over Consulta’s claim for unpaid commission.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that no employer-employee relationship existed. The Court applied the four-fold test: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the power of control, which is the most determinative element. The appointment letter was clear that the relationship was not one of employment. Consulta was not paid a salary but worked purely on commission. She was not subject to the control of Pamana regarding the means and methods of her work; she operated with independence, managing her own sales group and being tasked only with end-result quotas. Her role was that of an independent agent or a commission salesperson.
Consequently, her claim for unpaid commission did not arise from an employer-employee relationship. Jurisdiction over money claims under Article 217 of the Labor Code requires such a relationship as a prerequisite. Since it was absent, the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the complaint. The proper remedy for Consulta was to file an ordinary civil action for collection of sum of money to litigate her claim for commissions. The petition was dismissed.