Case Digest (G.R. No. 145443) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Pamana Philippines, Inc., engaged in the health care business, appointed Raquel P. Consulta as a Managing Associate under a contract dated December 1, 1987 until January 2, 1988, on a non-employer-employee basis. Consulta’s duties included organizing, developing, managing, and maintaining a sales division, recruiting, training, and directing Supervising Associates and Health Consultants, and promoting the company’s “Love Mission.” She was to represent Pamana exclusively, with commissions based on actual membership fees collected. On November 23, 1987, Pamana issued a certification authorizing Consulta to negotiate a health care plan with the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association (FFCEA). After Pamana and the U.S. Naval Supply Depot executed the FFCEA contract on March 4, 1988, Consulta claimed nonpayment of her commissions and filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter against Pamana and its officers Razul Z. Requesto and Aleta Tolentino. The Labor Arbiter grante Case Digest (G.R. No. 145443) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Appointment and Terms of Engagement
- Pamana Philippines, Inc. appointed Raquel P. Consulta effective December 1, 1987 to January 2, 1988 as Managing Associate on a non-employer–employee basis. Her duties were to organize, develop, manage, and maintain a sales division; recruit, train, and direct Supervising Associates and Health Consultants; and uphold company policies and image.
- The appointment paper provided for exclusive representation of Pamana, a one-year non-compete post-termination, and commission-only compensation: 5% on entrance fees, 6% on medical and subsequent membership fees, plus participation in sales contests. No fixed salary was paid.
- Negotiation of FFCEA Account
- On November 23, 1987, Pamana’s president issued a Certification authorizing Consulta to negotiate with the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association (FFCEA) for the Pamana Golden Care Health Plans, affirming her right to commissions, overrides, and benefits for as long as the contract and renewals remained in force and the consultants remained active.
- On March 4, 1988, Pamana and the U.S. Naval Supply Depot executed the FFCEA account contract. Consulta claimed Pamana failed to pay her earned commissions.
- Procedural History
- Consulta filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter. On June 23, 1993, Arbiter Lopez ordered Pamana et al. to pay unpaid commissions upon presentation of documents and 10% attorney’s fees.
- The NLRC (July 22, 1994) dismissed Pamana’s appeal and affirmed the Arbiter; it denied reconsideration on October 3, 1994. Pamana et al. filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.
- This Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals under St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC. On April 28, 2000, the CA reversed the NLRC, ruling that Consulta was an independent contractor and that labor tribunals lacked jurisdiction.
Issues:
- Whether Consulta was an employee of Pamana or an independent contractor under the Labor Code.
- Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over her claim for unpaid commissions.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)