Case Summary (G.R. No. 159890)
Factual Background
Petitioner was engaged by Respondents in June 1985 as a commission salesman earning three percent of total paid-up sales and covering the whole area of Mindanao, with average monthly income ranging from about P16,000 to approximately P20,269.50. His functions included selling respondent's merchandise and collecting payments from customers. In 1998 petitioner encountered five customers with allegedly bad accounts totaling P687,166.62. Confronted by respondent Jose Lamadrid, petitioner issued personal checks as security on condition that the checks would not be deposited and would be offset against his commissions. Petitioner later discovered that he had also signed documents later characterized by respondents as a Promissory Note and a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. Although respondents initially returned the undeposited checks, they later deposited several remaining checks which were dishonored for "Account Closed." Petitioner discovered he was not enrolled in the Social Security System when he sought a loan. Respondents' counsel sent a demand for payment on March 22, 2001. Thereafter petitioner's customers received notices that respondent corporation no longer recognized him as its commission salesman, and respondents filed criminal charges under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which led to a subpoena from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
Labor Arbiter Proceedings
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims before the Labor Arbiter, alleging wrongful termination and various money claims including unpaid commissions and damages. Respondents pleaded that petitioner was not an employee but a freelance commission salesman who procured goods on credit, consignment or installment basis and sold these for profit, citing as indicia the absence of salary and benefits, lack of daily reporting, no pay slips, non-enrollment in SSS and Philhealth, petitioner's acknowledged commission status, and evidence that petitioner worked as commission salesman for other companies. The Labor Arbiter, after accepting the parties' position papers and finding in favor of petitioner, rendered a decision on November 29, 2001 awarding P1,336,729.62 representing separation pay, partial back wages, unpaid commissions, refund of deductions, damages and attorney's fees.
NLRC Ruling
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter in a Resolution dated April 5, 2002, set aside and vacated the Labor Arbiter's decision, and dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.
Court of Appeals Ruling
Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals which, in CA-G.R. SP No. 73102, denied the petition by a decision dated March 7, 2003 and ordered release of the supersedeas bond. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s conclusion that there was no employer-employee relationship and thus no cause of action for illegal dismissal.
Issues Presented
The case required resolution of whether Petitioner, a three percent commission salesman, was an employee of Respondents entitled to security of tenure and employment-related benefits, or an independent contractor or commission agent without such protections; whether the element of control, the decisive factor in the employer-employee inquiry, existed; whether Art. 280, Labor Code converted the relationship into regular employment; and whether petitioner proved coercion in the execution of the promissory note and mortgage.
Parties' Contentions
Petitioner argued that he was a regular employee under Art. 280 because his activities were usually necessary to the business of respondent corporation and that control existed as evidenced by directives to report to specific areas, attendance at conferences in Manila, and close monitoring by Jose Lamadrid; petitioner also maintained that he was coerced into executing the promissory note and mortgage and that respondents breached their agreement by depositing the checks and excluding him from SSS. Respondents maintained that petitioner was an independent commission salesman and advanced multiple indicia negating an employment relationship: petitioner's own admissions of commission status, absence of monthly salary and employment benefits, lack of regular reporting, absence of pay slips, non-withholding of taxes and non-enrollment in SSS and Philhealth, petitioner's engagement with other firms in the same line, and petitioner's execution of financial instruments acknowledging indebtedness.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled four-fold test for employer-employee relations—manner of selection and engagement, payment of wages, presence or absence of power of dismissal, and presence or absence of power of control—and identified the control test as the most determinative. Applying the control test, the Court observed that although Petitioner was remunerated by commission, Respondents did not impose quotas, did not require daily reporting or periodic written reports, did not designate specific localities for sales, and did not prescribe the manner or means of soliciting customers. The Court found that petitioner's occasional attendance at conferences in Manila served as guidance and skills upgrading rather than control of the manner and means of work. The Court noted petitioner relied on his own resources, sold without supervision, and was free to offer services to competing companies, as shown by certifications. The Court held that Art. 280 merely differentiates regular from casual employment for certain benefits and it does not resolve the antecedent question whether an employment relationship exists; the Court cited Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Drilon for that proposition. The Court further clarified that commission compensation is not conclusive proof of employment and distinguished t
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159890)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Empermaco B. Abante, Jr. filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73102.
- Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corp. and Jose Lamadrid, President were respondents in the administrative and judicial proceedings stemming from petitioner’s claim of illegal dismissal and money claims.
- The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated November 29, 2001 in favor of petitioner awarding P1,336,729.62 for separation pay, back wages (partial), unpaid commissions, refund of deductions, damages and attorneys’ fees.
- The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter by Resolution dated April 5, 2002 and dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action.
- The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s appeal in its Decision dated March 7, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 73102.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the case on petition for review under Rule 45 and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioner was engaged by the respondents sometime in June 1985 as a commission salesman who earned a commission of three percent of total paid-up sales and who covered the whole area of Mindanao.
- Petitioner’s average monthly income was about P16,000.00 and was later increased to approximately P20,269.50.
- Petitioner both sold merchandise and collected payments from his customers, and respondents occasionally directed him to report to particular areas and to attend conferences in Manila.
- In 1998 petitioner allegedly incurred five customers’ bad accounts totaling P687,166.62 which respondents confronted him about and demanded that he issue personal checks to cover.
- Petitioner issued multiple personal checks as requested on the condition that they would not be deposited and would be offset against his commissions, and later received purportedly returned undeposited checks and a computation of commissions from respondent Lamadrid.
- Petitioner discovered that he had signed a Promissory Note and a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage which he later claimed were procured by trickery.
- Petitioner learned he was not enrolled in the Social Security System and thereafter respondents deposited the remaining checks which were dishonored by the drawee bank for account closed.
- Counsel for respondents sent a demand letter dated March 22, 2001, and petitioner responded by offering his earned commissions as partial payment and by committing one hundred percent of future commissions to satisfy the obligation.
- Petitioner received a subpoena for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and while fielding his duties was informed by customers that respondents had warned them not to deal with him.
Respondents’ Defense
- Respondents maintained that petitioner was not an employee but a freelance commission salesman who procured merchandise on credit, consignment, or installment and sold the same for profit and commission.
- Respondents asserted that petitioner repeatedly characterized his relationship as commission-based and that he had no monthly salary or employment benefits.
- Respondents argued that petitioner was not required to report daily or to submit periodic written reports, was not given pay slips, and was not enrolled with SSS or PhilHealth.
- Respondents presented certifications showing that petitioner worked a