G.R. No. 222455 - Mojica vs. Generali Pilipinas Life Assurance Co., Inc.

Petitioner Gerry S. Mojica formerly held the positions of Unit Manager and Associate Branch Manager with respondent Generali Pilipinas Life Assurance Company, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in life and non-life insurance.
Respondent’s business involved employing agents and independent contractors to solicit and manage insurance policies.

Petitioner was hired as an agent and independent contractor, not as an employee.
The monthly drawing allowance provided (initially Php40,000, later reduced to Php30,000) was advanced against the petitioner’s future override commission earnings.
The drawing allowance was subject to meeting specific monthly validation requirements and had to be liquidated over an eighteen (18) month period, if not earlier.

Petitioner failed to meet the premium production and manpower targets stipulated in his business plan.
As a consequence, respondent ceased releasing monthly drawing allowances.
Petitioner resigned on March 1, 2003, leaving an outstanding balance from the cumulative advance.
A letter dated March 6, 2003, sent by respondent accepted his resignation and formally demanded the repayment of outstanding obligations, including monthly drawing allowances and other dues totalling over Php514,639.17 (with additional liabilities of Php6,008.12).

He argued that he was an employee rather than an independent contractor.
As an employee, he claimed that the monthly drawing allowances constituted his salary and should not be subject to repayment.
Petitioner also challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court, asserting that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) had jurisdiction due to an alleged employer-employee relationship.

The trial court rendered a Decision on June 24, 2010, awarding respondent Php514,639.17 for unpaid monthly drawing allowances along with attorney’s fees and costs.
The court emphasized the contractual nature of the relationship, confirming petitioner's obligation to liquidate the advanced drawing allowances.

The appellate court affirmed, with modifications, the trial court’s decision.
It upheld that petitioner was an independent contractor, citing the clear provisions in the agreements.
The Court of Appeals ordered repayment of the outstanding amount with an interest rate of 6% per annum on the principal, modified as to the computation period, and deleted the award for attorney’s fees for lack of proper justification.

The petition for review sought to contest the Court of Appeals’ findings on both the contractor versus employee issue and the obligation to refund the drawing allowances.
The Supreme Court’s decision, rendered on September 18, 2019, affirmed the appellate ruling with modifications.

Whether petitioner was an independent contractor or an employee of respondent, given the content of the contractual agreements and the mode of remuneration.
The implications of such classification on the obligation to repay the monthly drawing allowances advanced by respondent.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to meet the stipulated monthly validation requirements necessitated repayment of the monthly drawing allowances, as advanced under the Memorandum of Agreement.
The correct computation of the interest applicable on the unpaid amounts, including the stipulated 12% per annum interest on the net debit balance and subsequent adjustments of legal interest rates.

The challenge raised by petitioner on the trial court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the NLRC should have exclusive jurisdiction due to the alleged employment relationship.