G.R. No. L-36435 - People vs. Pena y Cayas

In 1994, Royale Homes Marketing Corporation engaged Fidel P. Alcantara as Marketing Director under a one-year contract, with successive renewals until January 1–December 31, 2003 as Division 5 Vice-President-Sales.
The January 24, 2003 contract provided: exclusive marketing of real-estate inventories; commission override and performance incentives; freedom to solicit sales “at any time and by any manner”; right to recruit and accredit own sales agents; company rules, regulations, code of ethics and periodic performance evaluations; an express disclaimer of any employer-employee relationship; and a termination clause for violation of rules.

In October 2003, Alcantara announced his voluntary departure to join his wife’s competing brokerage firm; Royale Homes accepted his resignation and held a despedida party.
Two months later, on December 17, 2003, Alcantara filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, claiming he was a regular employee, entitled to backwages, reinstatement, moral/exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and transfer of a company vehicle.

Alcantara alleged: performance of essential business tasks; receipt of P1.2 million in 2003; ostracism by executives amounting to dismissal without cause or due process.
Royale Homes countered: Alcantara was an independent contractor paid purely on commission; no salary or statutory benefits; free to set hours and methods; he pre-terminated the contract voluntarily to join a competing enterprise.

Labor Arbiter (September 7, 2005): Held an employer-employee relationship existed; pre-termination was unlawful; awarded P277,000 for unexpired contract term; corporate officers absolved.
NLRC (February 23, 2009): Reversed Arbiter; found Alcantara an independent contractor; dismissed complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals (June 23, 2010): Reversed NLRC; applied four-fold and economic reality tests; found employer-employee relationship and illegal dismissal; ordered backwages and separation pay; remanded for computation; denied reconsideration (January 18, 2011).

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding that Alcantara was an employee illegally dismissed by Royale Homes.
Whether the Court of Appeals disregarded this Court’s en banc ruling in Tongko v. Manulife and the precedents in Sonza v. ABS-CBN and Consulta v. CA.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error in denying Royale Homes’s motions for reconsideration.