G.R. No. 228799 - Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. vs. Germo

Technical Consultancy Agreement and Performance
On September 21, 2004, Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. (MRII), through its President/CEO Antonio Tompar, entered into a Technical Consultancy Agreement (TCA) with Benfrei S. Germo, appointing him as marketing consultant to negotiate and perfect MRII’s sales, orders, contracts, or services on a purely commission basis, plus a P5,000.00 monthly allowance.
On May 2, 2006, Germo successfully negotiated a supply contract between MRII and International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) for 700 cubic meters of purified water per day. MRII began supplying on February 22, 2007, and ICTSI paid MRII the corresponding monthly fees.

Unpaid Commissions and Procedural History
As of December 2009, MRII allegedly failed to pay Germo his commissions amounting to P2,225,969.56 inclusive of interest.
Germo’s complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was dismissed for lack of employer-employee relationship. A subsequent civil case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 256 was dismissed without prejudice due to counsel’s failure to mark documentary evidence.

RTC and CA Proceedings
On February 28, 2011, Germo filed a civil Complaint in RTC Muntinlupa, Branch 276, seeking unpaid commissions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against MRII and Tompar.
MRII and Tompar denied an employer–employee relationship, disputed Germo’s role in procuring the ICTSI account, and claimed another agent was responsible.
Due to their repeated absences at pre-trial, MRII and Tompar were declared in default, allowing Germo to present his evidence ex parte, including sales invoices from February 2007 to March 2012.
The RTC, in its January 14, 2015 Decision, held MRII and Tompar solidarily liable to pay Germo:

P4,499,412.84 as unpaid commissions (Feb 2007–Mar 2012) with legal interest from judicial demand until fully paid;
P100,000.00 as moral damages;
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals (CA), in its August 8, 2016 Decision and October 14, 2016 Resolution, affirmed the RTC ruling. MRII and Tompar then sought relief before the Supreme Court.

Whether the CA correctly affirmed the solidary liability of MRII and Tompar to Germo.
Whether the dispute fell under NLRC jurisdiction or that of the regular courts.
Whether Germo had legal personality to sue, given his alleged capacity as a representative of another entity.