Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 242 views

    AFP vs. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    unbeatable38
    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent for misrepresentation and selling insurance for another company. The private respondent filed a complaint seeking payment of commissions owed. The issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed. The court held no relationship existed. Key factors included the private respondent setting his own methods, hours, and conditions of work. He was also compensated based on commissions from his efforts. As an independent contractor, the proper forum for his claim was a civil case, not a labor case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AFP vs. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    unbeatable38
    242 views1 page
    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent for misrepresentation and selling insurance for another company. The private respondent filed a complaint seeking payment of commissions owed. The issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed. The court held no relationship existed. Key factors included the private respondent setting his own methods, hours, and conditions of work. He was also compensated based on commissions from his efforts. As an independent contractor, the proper forum for his claim was a civil case, not a labor case.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent for misrepresentation and selling insurance for another company. The private respondent filed a complaint seeking payment of commissions owed. The issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed. The court held no relationship existed. Key factors included the private respondent setting his own methods, hours, and conditions of work. He was also compensated based on commissions from his efforts. As an independent contractor, the proper forum for his claim was a civil case, not a labor case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    242 views1 page

    AFP vs. NLRC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    unbeatable38
    The petitioner dismissed the private respondent for misrepresentation and selling insurance for another company. The private respondent filed a complaint seeking payment of commissions owed. The issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed. The court held no relationship existed. Key factors included the private respondent setting his own methods, hours, and conditions of work. He was also compensated based on commissions from his efforts. As an independent contractor, the proper forum for his claim was a civil case, not a labor case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Myla Ruth N.

    Sara

    AFP vs. NLRC


    FACTS:

    Private respondent Bustamante is an insurance underwriter of petitioner. The Sales Agent Agreement
    provided that the sales agent shall solicit exclusively for AFPMBAI and shall be bound by its policies. However, he
    shall confine his business activities for AFPMBAI while inside any military camp. He shall also be entitled to a
    commission. It is provided in the contract that there shall be no employer-employee relationship between the
    parties.
    Petitioner dismissed private respondent for misrepresentation and for selling insurance for another
    insurance company.
    Respondent wrote petitioner seeking the release of his commissions for the 24 months. When he collected
    his check, he discovered that his total commissions amounted to P354, 796.09. However, he was paid only in the
    amount of P35, 000.
    Thus, respondent filed a complaint for the payment of the correct amount of his commission.

    ISSUE: W/N there existed an ER-EE relationship between petitioner and respondent

    HELD: No.
    The issue of exclusivity in the case at bar, when private respondent was required to solicit business
    exclusively for petitioner could not be considered as control in labor jurisprudence. Insurance agents are barred
    from serving more than one insurance company in order to protect the public. Thus, the exclusivity restriction
    clearly springs from a regulation issued by the Insurance Commission and not from an intention by petitioner to
    establish control.
    The fact that respondent was bound by company policies is also not indicative of control. Petitioner alleges
    that the policies referred in the agreement are only those pertaining to payment of agents’ accountabilities.
    In regard to the territorial assignments given to sales agents, this too cannot be held as indicative of the
    exercise of control over an employee. The place of work in the business of soliciting does not figure prominently in
    the equation.
    The test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an
    independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to
    the control of the employer except only as to the result of the work. Such is exactly the nature of the relationship
    between petitioner and respondent.
    Private respondent contended that he was petitioner’s employee is belied by the fact that he was free to
    sell insurance at any time as he was not subject to definite hours or conditions of work and in turn was
    compensated according to the result of his efforts.
    Since private respondent had never been petitioner’s employee, but only a commission agent, his claim for
    unpaid commission should have been litigated in an ordinary civil action. It remains a basic fact in law that the
    choice of the proper forum is crucial as the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void
    judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all.

    You might also like