Scribd
Upload
329 views2 pages

Century Properties vs. Babiano

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion were employees, not agents, of Century Properties, Inc. Babiano had been Vice President of Sales and Concepcion was repeatedly rehired as a sales agent. While their contracts stated they were agents, the court found Century Properties exercised control over their work duties. As employees, Babiano and Concepcion could claim unpaid commissions and benefits in a labor case rather than a civil case. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of the employees.

Uploaded by

Sheryl Ogoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
329 views2 pages

Century Properties vs. Babiano

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion were employees, not agents, of Century Properties, Inc. Babiano had been Vice President of Sales and Concepcion was repeatedly rehired as a sales agent. While their contracts stated they were agents, the court found Century Properties exercised control over their work duties. As employees, Babiano and Concepcion could claim unpaid commissions and benefits in a labor case rather than a civil case. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings in favor of the employees.

Uploaded by

Sheryl Ogoc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

220978, July 05, 2016

CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN J. BABIANO AND EMMA B.


CONCEPCION, Respondents.

Facts:
Respondent Babiano has been hired by the petitioner as Director of Sales and eventually,
he was promoted as Vice President of Sales. On the other hand, respondent Concepcion became
a sales agent of the petitioner. As provided in both of their contracts, the respondents shall forfeit
their commission on each sale in cases where a disclosure of information has been committed.
Moreover, the respondents are also prohibited to engage in the same line of service in favour of
the competitor of the petitioner. Notably, the contract states that no employer-employee
relationship shall arise from such contract. In 2009, Babiano tendered a resignation letter
containing therein that he already accepted a position in the competitor company of the
petitioner. The petitioner forfeited the benefits of Babiano as to the commission due to him. On
the same year, Concepcion also rendered her resignation letter as Project Director, effective
immediately. In 2011, the respondents filed a complaint for non-payment of commission and
benefits. The petitioner argued that the respondents are mere agents of the petitioner and no
employer-employee relationship exists among them. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of the
petitioner declaring that the claims of the respondents lack merits and such case should have
been filed through an ordinary civil action because no employer-employee relationship exists.
On appeal before the NLRC, the ruling of the Labor Arbiter have been reversed and set aside,
declaring the respondents as employees of the petitioner and awarding them their money claims.
The NLRC explained that the act of the petitioner on repeated re-hiring of Concepcion clearly
shows that she is indeed an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner moved for reconsideration,
however NLRC denied the same. The CA upheld the ruling of the NLRC but increased the
monetary amount of the claim. Hence, this present petition before the Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are employees of the petitioner.

Ruling:
Yes. They are to be considered as employees of the petitioner.

The Supreme Court stressed in their rulings that the control over the manner and
execution of the duties of an engaged person for services is the determining factor of an
employer-employee relationship. Clearly, the petitioner has control over the performance of the
respondents without using their discretion in completing the task. Anent thereto, the money
claims of the respondents has been filed correctly due to the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Therefore, the respondents are declared employees.

You might also like