10 tongko vs the manufacturers life insurance

8/13/2019 10 Tongko vs the Manufacturers Life Insurance

1/13

Tongko vs. The Manufacturers Life InsuranceCo., Inc.G.R. No. 167622, Nove!er "7, 2""#

$%CT&'- Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc.(Manulife) is a domestic corporation engaged in lifeinsurance business.- Renato A. ergel !e !ios "as, during the periodmaterial, its President and Chief #$ecuti%e &fficer.- 'regorio . ongo started his professionalrelationship "ith Manulife on *ul+ , b+ %irtue of aCareer Agent/s Agreement (Agreement) he e$ecuted"ith Manulife.

In the Agreement, it is pro%ided that0

It is understood and agreed that the Agent isan independent contractor and nothingcontained herein shall be construed orinterpreted as creating an emplo+er-emplo+eerelationship bet"een the Compan+ and theAgent.

he Compan+ ma+ terminate this Agreement

for an+ breach or %iolation of an+ of thepro%isions hereof b+ the Agent b+ gi%ing"ritten notice to the Agent "ithin fifteen (1)da+s from the time of the disco%er+ of thebreach. 2o "ai%er, e$tinguishment,abandonment, "ithdra"al or cancellation ofthe right to terminate this Agreement b+ theCompan+ shall be construed for an+ pre%iousfailure to e$ercise its right under an+ pro%isionof this Agreement.

#ither of the parties hereto ma+ lie"iseterminate his Agreement at an+ time "ithoutcause, b+ gi%ing to the other part+ fifteen (1)da+s notice in "riting.

- In 34, ongo "as named as a 5nit Manager inManulife/s 6ales Agenc+ &rgani7ation.- In 8, he became a 9ranch Manager.- As the CA found, ongo/s gross earnings from his"or at Manulife, consisting of commissions,persistenc+ income, and management o%errides.- he problem started sometime in :88, "henManulife instituted manpo"er de%elopment programsin the regional sales management le%el. Relati%ethereto, !e !ios addressed a letter dated 2o%ember ;,:88 to ongo regarding an &ctober 3, :88 Metro2orth 6ales Managers Meeting. 6tating that ongo


2/13

gross and habitual neglect of duties, inefficienc+, as"ell as "illful disobedience of the la"ful orders ofManulife. Manulife stated0

In the instant case, pri%ate respondent, despite the"ritten reminder from Mr. !e !ios refused to shape upand altogether disregarded the latter/s ad%ice resultingin his laggard performance clearl+ indicati%e of his"illful disobedience of the la"ful orders of his superior.As pri%ate respondent has patentl+ failed to perform a%er+ fundamental dut+, and that is to +ield obedienceto all reasonable rules, orders and instructions of theCompan+, as "ell as gross failure to reach at leastminimum Duota, the termination of his engagementfrom Manulife is highl+ "arranted and therefore, thereis no illegal dismissal to spea of.It is readil+ e%ident from the abo%e-Duoted portions ofManulife/s petition that it failed to cite a single iota ofe%idence to support its claims. Manulife did not e%enpoint out "hich order or rule that ongo disobe+ed.More importantl+, Manulife did not point out thespecific acts that ongo "as guilt+ of that "ouldconstitute gross and habitual neglect of dut+ ordisobedience. Manulife merel+ cited ongo/s alleged=laggard performance,= "ithout substantiating such

claim, and eDuated the same to disobedience andneglect of dut+.

Apropos thereto, Art. :, par. (b), of the Labor Codemandates in e$plicit terms that the burden of pro%ingthe %alidit+ of the termination of emplo+ment rests onthe emplo+er. ?ailure to discharge this e%identialburden "ould necessaril+ mean that the dismissal "asnot @ustified, and, therefore, illegal.

he Labor Code pro%ides that an emplo+er ma+terminate the ser%ices of an emplo+ee for @ust causeand this must be supported b+ substantial e%idence.he settled rule in administrati%e and Duasi-@udicialproceedings is that proof be+ond reasonable doubt is

not reDuired in determining the legalit+ of anemplo+er/s dismissal of an emplo+ee, and not e%en apreponderance of e%idence is necessar+ as substantiale%idence is considered sufficient. 6ubstantial e%idenceis more than a mere scintilla of e%idence or rele%ante%idence as a reasonable mind might accept asadeDuate to support a conclusion, e%en if other minds,eDuall+ reasonable, might concei%abl+ opine other"ise.

ere, Manulife failed to o%ercome such burden ofproof. It must be reiterated that Manulife e%en failed toidentif+ the specific acts b+ "hich ongo/semplo+ment "as terminated much less support thesame "ith substantial e%idence. o repeat, mere

con@ectures cannot "or to depri%e emplo+ees of theirmeans of li%elihood. hus, it must be concluded thatongo "as illegall+ dismissed.

Moreo%er, as to Manulife/s failure to compl+ "ith thet"in notice rule, it reasons that ongo not being itsemplo+ee is not entitled to such notices. 6ince "e ha%eruled that ongo is its emplo+ee, ho"e%er, Manulifeclearl+ failed to afford ongo said notices. hus, onthis ground too, Manulife is guilt+ of illegal dismissal.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

EN BANC

R E S O L U T I O N

BRIONJ.:

This resolves theMotion for Reconsideration[1]dated

December 3, 2008 filed by respondent The Manufacturers ife!nsurance "o# $%hils#&, !nc# $Manulife& to set aside our Decision of

'ovember (, 2008# !n the assailed decision, )e found that anemployer*employee relationship e+isted bet)een Manulife and

petitioner re-orio Ton-.o and ordered Manulife to pay Ton-.obac.)a-es and separation pay for ille-al dismissal#

The follo)in- facts have been stated in our Decision of

'ovember (, 2008, no) under reconsideration, but are repeatedsimply for purposes of clarity#

The contractual relationship bet!een Ton"#o an$

Manulife ha$ t!o basic phases% The first or initial phase be"an

on &ul' ( ()**, under a "areer /-ents /-reement $Agreement& tha

provided

+RE+ORIO ,% TON+-O

%etitioner,

* versus *

T.E MANU/ACTURERS LI/E

INSURANCE CO% 0P.ILS%1 INC% an$

RENATO A% ,ER+EL 2E 2IOS

espondents#

+%R% No% (3*344

%resent

"'/, C.J.,

"/%!, "/%! M/45,

64/5", 7#, '/"9/,

4'/D*D4"/5T, :!', %4/T/,

:45/M!', D4 "/5T!, /:/D, 6!//M/, 7#,

%44;, and M4'D;/,JJ.

%romul-ated

7une 2


3/13

!t is understood and a-reed that the/-ent is an independent contractor and nothin-contained herein shall be construed or interpreted

as creatin- an employer*employee relationshipbet)een the "ompany and the /-ent#

+ + + +

a& The /-ent shall canvass for

applications for ife !nsurance, /nnuities, rouppolicies and other products offered by the

"ompany, and collect, in e+chan-e forprovisional receipts issued by the /-ent, money

due to or become due to the "ompany in respectof applications or policies obtained by or throu-h

the /-ent or from policyholders allotted by the"ompany to the /-ent for servicin-, sub=ect to

subse>uent confirmation of receipt of payment bythe "ompany as evidenced by an fficial eceiptissued by the "ompany directly to the

policyholder#

+ + + +

The "ompany may terminate this

/-reement for any breach or violation of any ofthe provisions hereof by the /-ent by -ivin-)ritten notice to the /-ent )ithin fifteen $1?&days from the time of the discovery of the breach#

'o )aiver, e+tin-uishment, abandonment,)ithdra)al or cancellation of the ri-ht toterminate this /-reement by the "ompany shall

be construed for any previous failure to e+ercise

its ri-ht under any provision of this /-reement#

4ither of the parties hereto mayli.e)ise terminate his /-reement at any time

)ithout cause, by -ivin- to the other party fifteen$1?& days notice in )ritin-#[2]

Ton-.o additionally a-reed $1& to comply )ith all re-ulations andre>uirements of Manulife, and $2& to maintain a standard of

.no)led-e and competency in the sale of Manulifes products,satisfactory to Manulife and sufficient to meet the volume of the ne)

business, re>uired by his %roduction "lub membership#[3]

The secon$ phasestarted in 1


4/13

This only confirms, re-, that those priorcomments have no solid basis at all# ! no)

believe )hat ! had thou-ht all alon-, that these

alle-ations )ere simply meant to muddle theissues surroundin- the inability of your e-ion tomeet its a-ency development ob=ectivesK

!ssue H 3 I5ales Mana-ers are doin- )hat thecompany as.s them to do but, in the process, theyearn less#J

+ + + +

/ll the above not)ithstandin-, )e had your o)nrecords chec.ed and )e found that you made a

lot more money in the Lear 2000 versus 1uently, de Dios )rote Ton-.o another letter, dated

December 18, 2001, terminatin- Ton-.os services

!t )ould appear, ho)ever, that despite the seriesof meetin-s and communications, both one*on*

one meetin-s bet)een yourself and 56% evin"onnor, some of them )ith me, as )ell as-roup meetin-s )ith your 5ales Mana-ers, allthese efforts have failed in helpin- you ali-n your

directions )ith Mana-ements avo)ed a-ency-ro)th policy#

+ + + +

n account thereof, Mana-ement is e+ercisin- its

prero-ative under 5ection 1B of your /-ents"ontract as )e are no) issuin- this notice oftermination of 'our A"enc' A"reement !ith

useffective fifteen days from the date of this

letter#[(]

Ton-.o responded by filin- an ille-al dismissal complain)ith the 'ational abor elations "ommission $NLRC& /rbitration

:ranch# e essentially alle-ed C despite the clear terms of the letterterminating his Agency AgreementC that he )as Manulifeemployee before he )as ille-ally dismissed#[8]

Thus, the threshol$ issueis the e+istence of anemployment relationship# / findin- that none e+ists renders the>uestion of ille-al dismissal moot a findin- that an employmenrelationship e+ists, on the other hand, necessarily leads to the need to

determine the validity of the termination of the relationship#

A. Tongkos Case for Employment Relationship

Ton-.o asserted that as 9nit Mana-er, he )as paid an annuaover*rider not e+ceedin- %?0,000#00, re-ardless of production levelsattained and e+clusive of commissions and bonuses# e also claimedthat as e-ional 5ales Mana-er, he )as -iven a travel and

entertainment allo)ance of %3A,000#00 per year in addition to hisoverridin- commissions he )as tas.ed )ith numerous administrative

functions and supervisory authority over Manulifes employees, asidefrom merely sellin- policies and recruitin- a-ents for Manulife and

he recommended and recruited insurance a-ents sub=ect to vettin-and approval by Manulife# e further alle-es that he )as assi-ned a

definite place in the Manulife offices )hen he )as not in the field Cat the 3rdFloor, Manulife "enter, 108 Tordesillas corner allardo5ts#, 5alcedo 6illa-e, Ma.ati "ity C for )hich he never paid anyrental# Manulife provided the office e>uipment he used, includin-
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn8


5/13

tables, chairs, computers and printers $and even office stationery&,and paid for the electricity, )ater and telephone bills# /s e-ional5ales Mana-er, Ton-.o additionally asserts that he )as re>uired to

follo) at least three codes of conduct#[uirements, i.e.,the different codes of conduct such as the /-ent "ode of

"onduct, the Manulife Financial "ode of "onduct, and theFinancial "ode of "onduct /-reement

2#2 The various affidavits of Manulifes

insurance a-ents and mana-ers, )ho occupied similarpositions as Ton-.o, sho)ed that they performedadministrative duties that established employment )ithManulife[12]and

2#3 Ton-.o )as tas.ed to recruit some

a-ents in addition to his other administrative functions# De

Dios letter harped on the direction Manulife intended tota.e,(i., -reater a-ency recruitment as the primary meanto sell more policies Ton-.os alle-ed failure to follo)this directive led to the termination of his employment )ith

Manulife#

The &otion for Reconsideration

Manulife disa-reed )ith our Decision and filed the presentmotion for reconsideration on the follo)in- +ROUN2S

1# The 'ovember ([, 2008] Decision

violates Manulifes ri-ht to due process by $a&confinin- the revie) only to the issue ofIcontrolJ and utterly disre-ardin- all the otherissues that had been =oined in this case $b&

mischaracteri@in- the diver-ence of conclusionsbet)een the "/ and the '" decisions asconfined only to that on IcontrolJ $c& -rosslyfailin- to consider the findin-s and conclusions

of the "/ on the ma=ority of the materialevidence, especially [Ton-.os] declaration in hisincome ta+ returns that he )as a Ibusiness

personJ or Iself*employedJ and $d& allo)in-

[Ton-.o] to repudiate his s)orn statement in apublic document#


contravenes settled rules in contract la) anda-ency, distorts not only the le-al relationships of

a-encies to sell but also distributorship andfranchisin-, and i-nores the constitutional and

policy conte+t of contract la) vis*N*vis labor la)#


i-nores the findin-s of the "/ on the threeelements of the four*fold test other than theIcontrolJ test, reverses )ell*settled doctrines of

la) on employer*employee relationships, and-rossly misapplies the Icontrol test,J byselectin-, )ithout basis, a fe) items of evidenceto the e+clusion of more material evidence to

support its conclusion that there is Icontrol#JB# The 'ovember ([, 2008] Decision is

=udicial le-islation, beyond the scope authori@ed

by /rticles 8 and < of the "ivil "ode, beyond thepo)ers -ranted to this "ourt under /rticle 6!!!,5ection 1 of the "onstitution and contravenesthrou-h =udicial le-islation, the constitutional

prohibition a-ainst impairment of contracts under/rticle !!!, 5ection 10 of the "onstitution#

?# For all the above reasons, the

'ovember ([, 2008] Decision madeunsustainable and reversible errors, )hich should

be corrected, in concludin- that espondentManulife and %etitioner had an employer*

employee relationship, that espondent Manulifeille-ally dismissed %etitioner, and for

conse>uently orderin- espondent Manulife topay %etitioner bac.)a-es, separation pay,nominal dama-es and attorneys fees#[13]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn13


6/13

T.E COURT9S RULIN+

'. The (nsurance and the Civil Codes)

the *arties+ (ntent and stablished(ndustr- *ractices

Ee cannot consider the present case purely from a labor

la) perspective, oblivious that the factual antecedents )ere set in theinsurance industry so that the !nsurance "ode primarily

-overns# "hapter !6, Title 1 of this "ode is )holly devoted toI!nsurance /-ents and :ro.ersJ and specifically defines the a-entsand bro.ers relationship )ith the insurance company and ho) theyare -overned by the "ode and re-ulated by the !nsurance

"ommission#

The !nsurance "ode, of course, does not )holly re-ulatethe Ia-encyJ that it spea.s of, as a-ency is a civil la) matter

-overned by the "ivil "ode# Thus, at the very least, three sets ofla)s C namely, the !nsurance "ode, the abor "ode and the "ivil"ode C have to be considered in loo.in- at the present case# 'ot to

be for-otten, too, is the /-reement $partly reproduced on pa-e 2 of

this Dissent and )hich no one disputes& that the parties adopted to-overn their relationship for purposes of sellin- the insurance thecompany offers# To for-et these other la)s is to ta.e a myopic vie)of the present case and to add to the uncertainties that no) e+ist in

considerin- the le-al relationship bet)een the insurance companyand its Ia-ents#J

The main issue of )hether an a-ency or an employment

relationship e+ists depends on the incidents of the relationship# Theabor "ode concept of IcontrolJ has to be compared and

distin-uished )ith the IcontrolJ that must necessarily e+ist in a

principal*a-ent relationship# The principal cannot but also have hisor her say in directin- the course of the principal*a-ent relationship,especially in cases )here the company*representative relationship in

the insurance industry is an a-ency#

a. The la#s on ins!rance and agency

The business of insurance is a hi-hly re-ulated commercialactivity in the country, in terms particularly of )ho can be in theinsurance business, )ho can act for and in behalf of an insurer, and

ho) these parties shall conduct themselves in the insurancebusiness# 5ection 18A of the !nsurance "ode provides that /Noperson, partnership, or association of persons shall transact anyins!rance *!siness in the 0hilippines e'cept as agent of a person or

corporation a!thoried to do the *!siness of ins!rance inthe 0hilippines.15ections 2ualification, be licensed and must also act )ithin the parameters

of the authority -ranted under the license and under the contract )iththe principal# ther than the need for a license, the a-ent is limited inthe )ay he offers and ne-otiates for the sale of the companyinsurance products, in his collection activities, and in the delivery of

the insurance contract or policy# ules re-ardin- the desired result$e.g., the re>uired volume to continue to >ualify as a company a-entrules to chec. on the parameters on the authority -iven to the a-entand rules to ensure that industry, le-al and ethical rules are follo)ed&

are built*in elements of control specific to an insurance a-ency andshould not and cannot be read as elements of control that attend anemployment relationship -overned by the abor "ode#

n the other hand, the "ivil "ode defines an a-ent as aIperson [)ho] binds himself to render some service or to dosomethin- in representation or on behalf of another, )ith the consenor authority of the latter#J[1A] Ehile this is a very broad definition tha

on its face may even encompass an employment relationship, thedistinctions bet)een a-ency and employment are sufficiently

established by la) and =urisprudence#

enerally, the determinative element is the controe+ercised over the one renderin- service# The employer controls the

employee both in the results and in the means and manner oachievin- this result# The principal in an a-ency relationship, on theother hand, also has the prero-ative to e+ercise control over the a-en
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn16


7/13

in underta.in- the assi-ned tas. based on the parameters outlined inthe pertinent la)s#

9nder the -eneral la) on a-ency as applied to insurance,an a-ency must be e+press in li-ht of the need for a license and forthe desi-nation by the insurance company# !n the present case, the/-reement fully serves as -rant of authority to Ton-.o as Manulifes

insurance a-ent#[1(] This a-reement is supplemented by thecompanys a-ency practices and usa-es, duly accepted by the a-entin carryin- out the a-ency#[18] :y authority of the !nsurance "ode, aninsurance a-ency is for compensation,[1


8/13

)hich li.e)ise is in accordance )ith the production*based salescommissions the !nsurance "ode provides#

5i-nificantly, evidence sho)s that Ton-.os role as aninsurance a-ent never chan-ed durin- his relationship )ithManulife# !f chan-es occurred at all, the chan-es did not appear to bein the nature of their core relationship# Ton-.o essentially remained

an a-ent, but moved up in this role throu-h Manulifes reco-nitionthat he could use other a-ents approved by Manulife, but operatin-under his -uidance and in )hose commissions he had a share# For)ant of a better term, Ton-.o perhaps could be labeled as a Ilead

a-entJ )ho -uided under his )in- other Manulife a-ents similarlytas.ed )ith the sellin- of Manulife insurance#

i.e Ton-.o, the evidence su--ests that these other a-ents

operated under their o)n a-ency a-reements# Thus, if Ton-.oscompensation scheme chan-ed at all durin- his relationship )ith

Manulife, the chan-e )as solely for purposes of creditin- him )ithhis share in the commissions the a-ents under his )in- -enerated# /san a-ent )ho )as recruitin- and -uidin- other insurance a-ents,Ton-.o li.e)ise moved up in terms of the reimbursement of

e+penses he incurred in the course of his lead a-ency, a prero-ativehe en=oyed pursuant to /rticle 1uitable concept[28]C necessarily must come into play# Ton-.osprevious admissions in several years of ta+ returns as an independena-ent, as a-ainst his belated claim that he )as all alon- an employee

are too diametrically opposed to be simply dismissed oi-nored# -nterestingly, J!stice 4elascos dissenting opinion statesthat Tongko #as forced to declare himself a *!siness or self+employed person *y Man!lifes persistent ref!sal to recognie him as

its employee.0#12Regrettabl-, the dissent has shown no basis for thisconclusion, an understandable omission since no evidence in fac

exists on this point in the records of the case. !n fact, )hat theevidence sho)s is Ton-.os full conformity )ith, and action as, an

independent a-ent until his relationship )ith Manulife too. a badturn#

/nother interestin- point the dissent raised )ith respect to the

/-reement is its conclusion that the /-reement ne-ated anyemployment relationship bet)een Ton-.o and Manulife so that the

commissions he earned as a sales a-ent should not be considered inthe determination of the bac.)a-es and separation pay that should be-iven to him# This part of the dissent is correct althou-h it )ent on tot)ist this conclusion by assertin- that Ton-.o had dual roles in his

relationship )ith Manulife he )as an a-ent, not an employee, in sofar as he sold insurance for Manulife, but )as an employee in hiscapacity as a mana-er# Thus, the dissent concluded that Ton-.o

bac.)a-es should only be )ith respect to his role as Manulife

mana-er#

The conclusion )ith respect to Ton-.os employment as amana-er is, of course, unacceptable for the le-al, factual and practica

reasons discussed in this esolution# !n brief, the factual reasoni-rounded on the lac. of evidentiary support of the conclusion thaManulife e+ercised control over Ton-.o in the sense understood inthe abor "ode# The le"al reason, partly based on the lac. of factua

basis, is the erroneous le-al conclusion that Manulife controlledTon-.o and )as thus its employee# The practical reason, on the

other hand, is the havoc that the dissents un)arranted conclusion)ould cause the insurance industry that, by the la)s o)n desi-n

operated alon- the lines of principal*a-ent relationship in the sale oinsurance#

c#2# ther 4vidence of /lle-ed "ontrol/ -larin- evidentiary -ap for Ton-.o in this case is the

lac. of evidence on record sho)in- that Manulife ever e+ercisedmeans*and*manner control, even to a limited e+tent, over Ton-.odurin- his ascent in Manulifes sales ladder# !n 1


9/13

performance of their respective obli-ations under the "ode,particularly on licenses and their rene)als, on the representations tobe made to potential customers, the collection of premiums, on the

delivery of insurance policies, on the matter of compensation, and onmeasures to ensure ethical business practice in the industry#

The -eneral la) on a-ency, on the other hand, e+pressly

allo)s the principal an element of control over the a-ent in a mannerconsistent )ith an a-ency relationship# !n this sense, these controlmeasures cannot be read as indicative of labor la) control# Foremostamon- these are the directives that the principal may impose on the

a-ent to achieve the assi-ned tas.s, to the e+tent that they do notinvolve the means and manner of underta.in- these tas.s# The la)

li.e)ise obli-ates the a-ent to render an account in this sense, theprincipal may impose on the a-ent specific instructions on ho) an

account shall be made, particularly on the matter of e+penses andreimbursements# To these e+tents, control can be imposed throu-h

rules and re-ulations )ithout intrudin- into the labor la) concept ofcontrol for purposes of employment#

From =urisprudence, an important lesson that thefirst

-ns!lar Lifecase teaches us is that a commitment to abide by therules and re-ulations of an insurance company does not ipso

factoma.e the insurance a-ent an employee# 'either do -uidelinessomeho) restrictive of the insurance a-ents conduct necessarily

indicate IcontrolJ as this term is defined in=urisprudence# +ui$elines in$icati=e of labor la! control asthefirst (nsular Lifecase tells us shoul$ not merel' relate to the

mutuall' $esirable result inten$e$ b' the contractual

relationshipD the' must ha=e the nature of $ictatin" the means or

metho$s to be emplo'e$ in attainin" the result or of fi6in" the

metho$olo"' an$ of bin$in" or restrictin" the part' hire$ to the

use of these means% !n fact, results*)ise, the principal can impose

production >uotas and can determine ho) many a-ents, )ith specificterritories, ou-ht to be employed to achieve the companys

ob=ectives# These are mana-ement policy decisions that the labor la)element of control cannot reach# ur rulin- in these respects in

thefirst -ns!lar Lifecase )as practically reiterated in Car!ngcong#Thus, as )ill be sho)n more fully belo), Manulifes codes of

conduct,[30]all of )hich do not intrude into the insurance a-ents

means and manner of conductin- their sales and only control them asto the desired results and !nsurance "ode norms, cannot be used asbasis for a findin- that the labor la) concept of control e+isted

bet)een Manulife and Ton-.o#

The dissent considers the imposition of administrative andmana-erial functions on Ton-.o as indicative of labor la) control

thus, Ton-.o as manager, *!t not as ins!rance agent,becameManulifes employee# !t dre) this conclusion from )hat the otherManulife mana-ers disclosed in their affidavits $i.e., their enumeratedadministrative and mana-erial functions& and after comparin- these

statements )ith the mana-ers in 2repalife# The dissent comparedthe control e+ercised by Manulife over its mana-ers in the presentcase )ith the control the mana-ers in the 2repalifecase e+ercisedover their employees by presentin- the follo)in- matri+[31]

Duties of Manulifes

Mana-er

Duties of repalifes

Mana-ersG5upervisors

* to render or recommendprospective a-ents to belicensed, trained andcontracted to sell Manulife

products and )ho )ill bepart of my 9nit

* train understudies for the position ofdistrict mana-er

* to coordinate activities ofthe a-ents under [themana-ers] 9nit in [the

* properly account, record anddocument the companys funds, spot*chec. and audit the )or. of the @one

a-ents] daily, )ee.ly and

monthly sellin- activities,ma.insure that theirrespective sales tar-ets aremet

* to conduct periodictrainin- sessions for [the]a-ents to further enhance

their sales s.ill and* to assist [the] a-ents )iththeir sales activities by )ay

of =oint field)or.,consultations and one*on*one evaluation and analysisof particular accounts

supervisors, + + + follo) up t

submission of )ee.ly remittanreports of the debit a-ents and @osupervisors

* direct and supervise the salactivities of the debit a-ents undhim, + + + underta.e and discharthe functions of absentee debit a-en

spot*chec. the record of debit a-enand insure proper documentation sales and collections of debit a-ents

/side from these affidavits ho)ever, no other evidence e+ist

re-ardin- the effects of Ton-.os additional roles in Manulifes salesoperations on the contractual relationship bet)een them#

To the dissent,Ton-.os administrative functions a

recruiter, trainer, or supervisor of other sales a-ents constituted asubstantive alteration of Manulifes authority over Ton-.o and the

performance of his end of the relationship )ith Manulife# Ee couldnot deny thou-h that Ton-.o remained, first and foremost, an

insurance a-ent, and that his additional role as :ranch Mana-er didnot lessen his main and dominant role as insurance a-ent this role

continued to dominate the relations bet)een Ton-.o and Manulifeeven after Ton-.o assumed his leadership role amon- a-ents# Thiconclusion cannot be denied because it proceeds from the undisputedfact that Ton-.o and Manulife never altered their 7uly 1

1ualitative difference that e+ists bet)een

the&anulife managers+ role is to coordinate

acti(ities of the agents !nder the managers 6nit in the agents daily,

#eekly, and monthly selling acti(ities, making s!re that theirrespecti(e sales targets are met.

theistrict &anager+s dut-

in 3repalife is to properly acco!nt, record, and doc!ment thecompany7s f!nds, spot+check and a!dit the #ork of the one

s!per(isors, conser(e the company7s *!siness in the district thro!gh/reinstatements,1 follo# !p the s!*mission of #eekly remittancereports of the de*it agents and one s!per(isors, preser(e company

property in good condition, train !nderst!dies for the position of

district managers, and maintain his 8!ota of sales 9the fail!re of#hich is a gro!nd for termination:.

the4one 5upervisor+s 6also in

3repalife7has the d!ty to direct and s!per(ise the sales acti(ities ofthe de*it agents !nder him, conser(e company property thro!gh

/reinstatements,1 !ndertake and discharge the f!nctions of a*senteede*it agents, spot+check the records of de*it agents, and ins!re

proper doc!mentation of sales and collections *y the de*it agents.

These =ob contents are )orlds apart in terms oIcontrol#J !n 2repalife, the details of ho) to do the =ob are specifiedand pre*determined in the present case, the operative )ords are theIsales tar-et,J the methodolo-y bein- left undefined e+cept to the

e+tent of bein- Icoordinative#J To be sure, a IcoordinativeJ standard
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn31


10/13

for a mana-er cannot be indicative of control the standard onlyessentially describes )hat a :ranch Mana-er is C the person in thelead )ho orchestrates activities )ithin the -roup# To

Icoordinate,J and thereby to lead and to orchestrate, is not so much amatter of control by Manulife it is simply a statement of a branchmana-ers role in relation )ith his a-ents from the point of vie) ofManulife )hose business Ton-.os sales -roup carries#

/ disturbin- note, )ith respect to the presented affidavits

and Ton-.os alle-ed administrative functions, is the selectivecitation of the portions supportive of an employment relationship and

the conse>uent omission of portions leadin- to the contraryconclusion# For e+ample, the follo)in- portions of the affidavit of

e-ional 5ales Mana-er 7ohn "hua, )ith counterparts in the otheraffidavits, )ere not brou-ht out in the Decision of 'ovember (, 2008,

)hile the other portions su--estin- labor la) control )erehi-hli-hted# 5pecifically, the follo)in- portions of the affidavits )ere

not brou-ht out[32]

1#a# ! have no fi+ed )a-es or salary since myservices are compensated by )ay of commissions

based on the computed premiums paid in full onthe policies obtained thereat1#b# ! have no fi+ed )or.in- hours and employ

my o)n method in soliticin- insurance at a timeand place ! see fit1#c# ! have my o)n assistant and messen-er )ho

handle my daily )or. load1#d# ! use my o)n facilities, tools, materials andsupplies in carryin- out my business of sellin-

insurance

+ + + +

A# ! have my o)n staff that handles the day today operations of my office

(# My staff are my o)n employees and receivedsalaries from me

+ + + +uirement for the recruitment of more a-ents isnot a means*and*method control as it relates, more than anythin-

else, and is directly relevant, to Manulifes ob=ective of e+pandedbusiness operations throu-h the use of a bi--er sales force )hosemembers are all on a principal*a-ent relationship# An importantpoint to note here is that Ton"#o !as not super=isin" re"ular

full5time emplo'ees of Manulife en"a"e$ in the runnin" of the

insurance businessD Ton"#o !as effecti=el' "ui$in" his corps o

sales a"ents !ho are boun$ to Manulife throu"h the same

A"reement that he ha$ !ith Manulife all the !hile sharin" in

these a"ents9 commissions throu"h his o=erri$es% This is the leada-ent concept mentioned above for )ant of a more appropriate termsince the title of :ranch Mana-er used by the parties is really a

misnomer -iven that )hat is involved is not a specific re-ular branchof the company but a corps of non*employed a-ents, defined in termsof covered territory, throu-h )hich the company sells insurance# 5tilanother point to consider is that Ton-.o )as not even settin- policie

in the )ay a re-ular company mana-er does company aims andob=ectives )ere simply relayed to him )ith su--estions on ho) these

ob=ectives can be reached throu-h the e+pansion of a non*employeesales force#

!nterestin-ly, a lar-e part of de Dios letter focused on

income, )hich Manulife demonstrated, in Ton-.os case, to beunaffected by the ne) -oal and direction the company hadset# !ncome in insurance a-ency, of course, is dependent on resultsnot on the means and manner of sellin- C a matter for Ton-.o and his

a-ents to determine and an area into )hich Manulife had no)aded# 9ndeniably, de Dios letter contained a directive to secure acompetent assistant at Ton-.os o)n e+pense# Ehile couched interms of a directive, it cannot strictly be understood as an intrusion

into Ton-.os method of operatin- and supervisin- the -roup oa-ents )ithin his delineated territory# More than anythin- else, theIdirectiveJ )as a si-nal to Ton-.o that his results )ereunsatisfactory, and )as a su--estion on ho) Ton-.os perceived

)ea.ness in deliverin- results could be remedied# !t )as a solution)ith an eye on results, for a consistently underperformin- -roup itobvious intent )as to save Ton-.o from the result that he then failedto -rasp C that he could lose even his o)n status as an a-ent, as he in

fact eventually did#

The present case must be distin-uished from the second-ns!lar Life casethat sho)ed the hallmar.s of an employer*employee

relationship in the mana-ement system established# These )eree+clusivity of service, control of assi-nments and removal of a-ent

under the private respondents unit, and furnishin- of company

facilities and materials as )ell as capital described as 9niDevelopment Fund# /ll these are obviously absent in the presentcase# !f there is a commonality in these cases, it is in the collection of

premiums )hich is a basic authority that can be dele-ated to a-entsunder the !nsurance "ode#

/s previously discussed, )hat simply happened in

Ton-.os case )as the -rant of an e+panded sales a-ency role thareco-ni@ed him as leader amon-st a-ents in an area that Manulifedefined# hether this conse?uentl' resulte$ in the establishmentof an emplo'ment relationship can be ans!ere$ b' concrete

e=i$ence that correspon$s to the follo!in" ?uestionsF

as lead a-ent, )hat )ere Ton-.os specific functions and

the terms of his additional en-a-ement

)as he paid additional compensation as a so*called /rea5ales Mana-er, apart from the commissions he received

from the insurance sales he -enerated

)hat can be Manulifes basis to terminate his status a

lead a-ent

can Manulife terminate his role as lead a-ent separately

from his a-ency contract and

to )hat e+tent does Manulife control the means and

methods of Ton-.os role as lead a-entO

The ans)ers to these >uestions may, to some e+tent, be deduced fromthe evidence at hand, as partly discussed above# :ut strictly

spea.in-, the >uestions cannot definitively and concretely be
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn32


11/13

ans)ered throu-h the evidence on record# The concrete evidencere/uired to settle these /uestions is simpl- not there, since onl- the

'greement and the anecdotal affidavits have been mar8ed and

submitted as evidence.

iven this anemic state of the evidence, particularly on there>uisite confluence of the factors determinative of the e+istence of

employer*employee relationship, the "ourt cannot conclusively findthat the relationship e+ists in the present case, even if suchrelationship only refers to Ton-.os additional functions# Ehile arou-h deduction can be made, the ans)er )ill not be fully supported

by the substantial evidence needed#

9nder this le-al situation, the only conclusion that can bemade is that the absence of evidence sho)in- Manulifes control over

Ton-.os contractual duties points to the absence of any employer*employee relationship bet)een Ton-.o and Manulife# !n the conte+t

of the established evidence, Ton-.o remained an a-ent all alon-althou-h his subse>uent duties made him a lead a-ent )ith leadershiprole, he )as nevertheless only an a-ent )hose basic contract yieldsno evidence of means*and*manner control#

This conclusion renders unnecessary any further discussion

of the >uestion of )hether an a-ent may simultaneously assumeconflictin- dual personalities# :ut to set the record strai-ht, the

concept of a sin-le person havin- the dual role of a-ent and employee)hile doin- the same tas. is a novel one in our =urisprudence, )hichmust be vie)ed )ith caution especially )hen it is $e=oi$ of an'

@urispru$ential support or prece$ent% The >uoted portions in

7ustice "arpio*Morales dissent,[33]borro)ed from boththe2repalife and thesecond -ns!lar Life cases, to support the dualityapproach of the Decision of 'ovember (, 2008, are re-rettably farremoved from their conte+t C i.e., the cases factual situations, the

issues they decided and the totality of the rulin-s in these cases C andcannot yield the conclusions that the dissentin- opinions dre)#

The 2repalife case dealt )ith the sole issue of )hether the

ui@ brothers appointment as @one supervisor and district mana-ermade them employees of 2repalife# !ndeed, because of the presence

of the element of control in their contract of en-a-ements, they )ere

considered 2repalifesemployees# This did not mean, ho)ever, thatthey )ere simultaneously considered a-ents as )ell as employeesof 2repalife the "ourts rulin- never implied that this situation

e+isted insofar as the ui@ brothers )ere concerned# The "ourtsstatement C the !nsurance "ode may -overn the licensin-re>uirements and other particular duties of insurance a-ents, but itdoes not bar the application of the abor "ode )ith re-ard to labor

standards and labor relations C simply means that )hen an insurancecompany has e+ercised control over its a-ents so as to ma.e themtheir employees, the relationship bet)een the parties, )hich )asother)ise one for a-ency -overned by the "ivil "ode and the

!nsurance "ode, )ill no) be -overned by the abor "ode# Thereason for this is simple C the contract of a-ency has beentransformed into an employer*employee relationship#

Thesecond -ns!lar Life case, on the other hand, involvedthe issue of )hether the labor bodies have =urisdiction over an ille-altermination dispute involvin- parties )ho had t)o contracts C first,an ori-inal contract $a-ency contract&, )hich )as undoubtedly one

for a-ency, and another subse>uent contract that in turn desi-natedthe a-ent actin- unit mana-er $a mana-ement contract :oth the

!nsular ife and the labor arbiter )ere one in the position that both)ere a-ency contracts# The "ourt disa-reed )ith this conclusion and

held that insofar as the mana-ement contract is concerned, the laborarbiter has =urisdiction# !t is in this li-ht that )e remanded the case to

the labor arbiter for further proceedin-s# Ee never said in this casethou-h that the insurance a-ent had effectively assumed dual

personalities for the simple reason that the a-ency contract has beeneffectively superseded by the mana-ement contract# The

mana-ement contract provided that if the appointment )asterminated for any reason other than for cause, the actin- unimana-er )ould be reverted to a-ent status and assi-ned to any unit#

The dissent pointed out, as an ar-ument to support itsemployment relationship conclusion, that any doubt in the e+istenceof an employer*employee relationship should be resolved in favor of

the e+istence of the relationship#[3B] This observation, apparentlydra)n from /rticle B of the abor "ode, is misplaced, as /rticle Bapplies only )hen a doubt e+ists in the Iimplementation andapplicationJ of the abor "ode and its implementin- rules it does

not apply )here no doubt e+ists as in a situation )here the claimanclearly failed to substantiate his claim of employment relationship by

the >uantum of evidence the abor "ode re>uires#

n the dissents last point re-ardin- the lac. o=urisprudential value of our 'ovember (, 2008 Decision, suffice it to

state that, as discussed above, the Decision )as not supported by theevidence adduced and )as not in accordance )ith controllin-

=urisprudence# !t should, therefore, be reconsidered and abandonedbut not in the manner the dissentsu--ests as the dissentin- opinion

are as factually and as le-ally erroneous as the Decision undereconsideration#

!n li-ht of these conclusions, the sufficiency of Ton-.os

failure to comply )ith the -uidelines of de Dios letter, as a -roundfor termination of Ton-.os a-ency, is a matter that the labotribunals cannot rule upon in the absence of an employer*employeerelationship# 7urisdiction over the matter belon-s to the court

applyin- the la)s of insurance, a-ency and contracts#

.ERE/ORE, considerin- the fore-oin- discussion)e RE,ERSEour Decision of 'ovember (

2008, +RANTManulifes motion for reconsideration andaccordin-ly, 2ISMISSTon-.os petition# 'o costs#

SO OR2ERE2#

ARTURO 2

BRION /ssociate 7ustice

E CONCURF
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftn34


12/13

CERTI/ICATION

%ursuant to 5ection 13, /rticle 6!!! of the "onstitution, it ishereby certified that the conclusions in the above esolution had

been reached in consultation before the case )as assi-ned to the

)riter of the opinion of the "ourt#

RENATO C% CORONA

"hief7ustice

[1]Rollo, pp# ((2*81


13/13

B# /s such 9M, ! render thefollo)in- services

a# To render or recommend

prospective a-ents to belicensed, trained andcontracted to sell Manulife

products and )ho )ill be part

of my 9nit#b# To coordinate activities of

the a-ents under my 9nit intheir daily, )ee.ly and

monthly sellin- activities,ma.insure that their

respective sales tar-ets aremet#

c# To conduct periodictrainin- sessions for my

a-ents to further enhancetheir sales s.ills#

d# To assist my a-ents )iththeir sales activities by )ay

of =oint field)or.,consultations and one*on*oneevaluation and analysis of

particular accounts#

e# To provide opportunities tomotivate my a-ents tosucceed li.e conductin-

promos to increase sales

activities and encoura-in-them to be involved incompany and industryactivities#

f# To provide opportunitiesfor professional -ro)th to my

a-ents by encoura-in- themto be a member of the

9"/% $ife 9nder)riters/ssociation of

the %hilippines[13]

Rollo, pp# ((A*(((#[1B]5ections 303 and 30B, !nsurance "ode#[1?]5ection 30A, !nsurance "ode#[1A]/rticle 18A8, "ivil "ode#[1(]/rticle 18Auotin- insupport of this assertion the follo)in- discussion in thesecond-ns!lar Lifecase

%arenthetically, both petitioner andrespondent '" treated the a-ency contract and

the mana-ement contract entered into bet)eenpetitioner and De los eyes as contracts of

a-ency# Ee, ho)ever, holdother)ise# 9n>uestionably there e+ist ma=or

distinctions bet)een the t)o a-reements# hile

the first has the earmar#s of an a"enc'contract the secon$ is far remo=e$ from the

concept of a"enc' in that pro=i$e$ therein are

con$itionalities that in$icate an emplo'er5

emplo'ee relationship# The '" therefore)as correct in findin- that pri=ate respon$ent!as an emplo'ee of petitioner but this hol$s

true onl' insofar as the mana"ement contract

is concerne$# !n vie) thereof, the abor /rbiterhas =urisdiction over the case#

[3B]7ustice %resbitero 6elasco, 7r#s Dissentin- pinion, p# 12#
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/167622.htm#_ftnref34

10 tongko vs the manufacturers life insurance

Documents