7/28/2019 CONSULTA vs CA.docx

1/1

CONSULTA vs CA Case Digest

[G.R. No. 145443. March 18, 2005]RAQUEL P. CONSULTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PAMANAPHILIPPINES, INC., RAZUL Z. REQUESTO, and ALETA TOLENTINO, respondents.

FACTS: Consulta was Managing Associate of Pamana. On 1987 she was issued acertification authorizing her to negotiate for and in behalf of PAMANA with theFederation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association. Consulta was able to secure anaccount with FFCEA in behalf of PAMANA. However, Consulta claimed that PAMANAdid not pay her commission for the PPCEA account and filed a complaint for unpaidwages or commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Consulta was an employee of PAMANA.

HELD: The SC held that Pamana was an independent agent and not an employee.

The power of control in the four fold test is missing. The manner in which Consulta wasto pursue her tasked activities was not subject to the control of PAMANA. Consultafailed to show that she worked definite hours. The amount of time, the methods andmeans, the management and maintenance of her sales division were left to her sound

judgment.

Finally, Pamana paid Consulta not for labor she performed but only for the results of herlabor. Without results, Consultas labor was her own burden and loss. H er right tocompensation, or to commission, depended on the tangible results of her work -whether she brought in paying recruits.

The fact that the appointment required Consulta to solicit business exclusively forPamana did not mean Pamana exercised control over the means and methods ofConsultas work as the term control is understood in labor jurisprudence. Neither did itmake Consulta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did not prohibit Consulta fromengaging in any other business, or from being connected with any other company, foras long as the business or company did not compete with Pamanas business. Theexclusivity clause was a reasonable restriction to prevent similar acts prejudicial toPamanas business interest. Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that [t]hecontracting parties may establish such stipulation, clauses, terms and conditions as theymay deem convenient, provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good

customs, public order, or public policy.

There being no employer-employee relationship between Pamana and Consulta, theLabor Arbiter and the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain and rule on Consultasmoney claim. Consultas remedy is to file an ordinary civil action to litigate her claim

Petition is dismissed.