Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Insular Life Assurance Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Grace Ann Tamboon
    This case examines whether an employment relationship existed between Insular Life Assurance and Pantaleon de los Reyes based on the control test. The NLRC ruled that Reyes was an employee, overturning the Labor Arbiter, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Unlike a previous case, Reyes was appointed as an Acting Unit Manager rather than agency manager. Insular Life provided Reyes an office space and materials. They also controlled his work assignments and removed agents under him. Therefore, Insular Life exercised sufficient control over the means and methods of Reyes' work to establish an employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court denied Insular Life's petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Insular Life Assurance Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Grace Ann Tamboon
    28 views1 page
    This case examines whether an employment relationship existed between Insular Life Assurance and Pantaleon de los Reyes based on the control test. The NLRC ruled that Reyes was an employee, overturning the Labor Arbiter, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Unlike a previous case, Reyes was appointed as an Acting Unit Manager rather than agency manager. Insular Life provided Reyes an office space and materials. They also controlled his work assignments and removed agents under him. Therefore, Insular Life exercised sufficient control over the means and methods of Reyes' work to establish an employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court denied Insular Life's petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    41. Insular Life Assurance vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case examines whether an employment relationship existed between Insular Life Assurance and Pantaleon de los Reyes based on the control test. The NLRC ruled that Reyes was an employee, overturning the Labor Arbiter, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Unlike a previous case, Reyes was appointed as an Acting Unit Manager rather than agency manager. Insular Life provided Reyes an office space and materials. They also controlled his work assignments and removed agents under him. Therefore, Insular Life exercised sufficient control over the means and methods of Reyes' work to establish an employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court denied Insular Life's petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    Insular Life Assurance Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Grace Ann Tamboon
    This case examines whether an employment relationship existed between Insular Life Assurance and Pantaleon de los Reyes based on the control test. The NLRC ruled that Reyes was an employee, overturning the Labor Arbiter, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Unlike a previous case, Reyes was appointed as an Acting Unit Manager rather than agency manager. Insular Life provided Reyes an office space and materials. They also controlled his work assignments and removed agents under him. Therefore, Insular Life exercised sufficient control over the means and methods of Reyes' work to establish an employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court denied Insular Life's petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Insular Life Assurance v.

    NLRC, 287 SCRA 476

    Employment Relationship (Test – Control Test)

    Facts:

    Petitioner Insular Life entered into an agency contract with respondent Pantaleon de los Reyes authorizing the latter to solicit
    applications for life insurance for which he would be paid compensation in the form of commissions. Sometime after, the parties
    entered into another contract where Pantaleon was appointed as Acting Unit Manager responsible for recruitment, training,
    organization, development and furtherance of the agency’s goals. He was prohibited from working for other life insurance
    companies or with the government. Pantaleon worked concurrently as agent and Acting Unit Manager until he was notified of his
    termination. He thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but
    on appeal was reversed by the NLRC tribunal ruling that Pantaleon was an employee of petitioner. Petitioner contends that
    nature of the work has already been resolved by the Court in the earlier case of Insular Life v. Basiao where Basiao is declared
    an independent contractor and not an employee of petitioner.

    Issue:

    Whether or not there exists employer-employee relationship between petitioner and Pantaleon.

    Ruling: YES.

    As to the matter involving the power of dismissal and control by the employer, the latter of which is the most important of the test,
    unlike Basiao, herein respondent De los Reyes was appointed Acting Unit Manager, not agency manager. Petitioner in fact has
    admitted that it provided De los Reyes a place and a table at its office where he reported for and worked whenever he was not
    out in the field.

    In this case, Delos Reyes is under the managership contract wherein the petitioner controlled the scope of work and the means
    to do the work by furnishing him of company facilities and materials as well as capital, giving him assignments and removing
    agents under private respondent’s unit, hence, Delos Reyes acts as an employee of the Petitioner.

    With that being said, with the petitioner having the control over the means and methods of performing the job, work or service
    expected from Delos Reyes, we can say that there is an employer-employee relationship using the control test.

    DISPOSITIVE

    WHEREFORE, the petition of Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd., is DENIED and the Decision of the National Labor
    Relations Commission dated 3 March 1995 and its Order of 6 April 1996 sustaining it are AFFIRMED. Let this case be
    REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter a quo who is directed to hear and dispose of this case with deliberate dispatch in light of the
    views expressed herein.

    You might also like