Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. Judico

G.R. No. 73887. December 21, 1989

P- Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation

R- Honorato Judico

Employer-Employee Relationship; Conditions of Employment

Facts:

Honorato Judico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Grepalife and prayed for award of money claims. The LA dismissed the complaint on the ground that the employer-employee relations did not exist between the parties, but ordered Grepalife to pay complainant the sum of P1,000.00 by reason of Christian Charity. Both appealed to NLRC.

The NLRC reversed the LA ruling by declaring Judico a regular employee as defined under Art. 281 of the Labor Code.

Grepalife argued that Judico is not its employee because his compensation was in the form of commissions and bonuses based on actual production (insurance plans sold and premium collections).

Issue:

WoN employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

Ruling:

            Yes, there exists an er-ee relation between Grepalife and Judico because the element of control by the former on the latter was present.

            The test to determine whether employer-employee relationship exists is when the “employee” was controlled by the “employer” not only as to the kind of work, the amount of results, the kind of performance, but also the power of dismissal.

            In this case, Judico received a definite minimum amount per week as his wage known as “sales reserve”. He was assigned a definite place in the office to work on when he is not in the field, was burdened with the job of collection, was required to make regular reports to the company, and for which an anemic performance would mean a dismissal. Undoubtedly, by nature of his position and work, Judico had been a regular employee of Grepalife, and is therefore entitled to the protection of the law and could not just be terminated without valid and justifiable cause.

            Thus, the appealed decision is affirmed in toto.