Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANGELITO L. LAZARO v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The Dissent's discussion on this aspect of the case begins with the wide disparity in the status of the parties - that Manulife is a big Canadian insurance company while Tongko is but a single agent of Manulife. The Dissent then went on to say that "[i]f is but just, it is but right, that the Court interprets the relationship between Tongko and Manulife as one of employment under labor laws and to uphold his constitutionally protected right, as an employee, to security of tenure and entitlement to monetary award should such right be infringed."[15] We cannot simply invoke the magical formula by creating an employment relationship even when there is none because of the unavoidable and inherently weak position of an individual over a giant corporation.
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
Lastly, in assailing the Agreement between him and Manulife, the petitioner cites Paguio v. National Labor Relations Commission[22] on the claim that the agreement that the parties signed did not conclusively indicate the legal relationship between them.
	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
The Decision of November 7, 2008 refers to the first Insular and Grepalife cases to establish that the company rules and regulations that an agent has to comply with are indicative of an employer-employee relationship.[24] The Dissenting Opinions of Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. and Justice Conchita Carpio Morales also cite Insular Life Assurance Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission (second Insular case)[25] to support the view that Tongko is Manulife's employee. On the other hand, Manulife cites the Carungcong case and AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (AFPMBAI case)[26] to support its allegation that Tongko was not its employee.
	GR No. 155207 2008-08-13	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA NACHURA, J.
In other words, the test is whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee, not only as to the work done, but also as to the means and methods by which the same is accomplished.[30]
	GR No. 176150 2008-06-25	IBARRA P. ORTEGA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is settled that the Court is not a trier of facts and accords great weight to the factual findings of lower courts or agencies whose function is to resolve factual matters.[41] It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[42] Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[43]