DR. CARLOS L. SEVILLA and LINA O. SEVILLA v.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS, TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC., ELISEO S. CANILAO
and SEGUNDINA NOGUERA
G.R. No. L-41182-3 | 160 SCRA 171 April 16, 1988
Facts:
Tourist World Service, Inc. (TWS) opened a branch office ran by Lina Sevilla
(Sevilla). In exchange of such service, Sevilla would receive four percent (4%) of
purchased airline tickets. The premises where the branch office was located was
owned by Segundina Noguera (Noguera).
It came to the knowledge of TWS that Sevilla was connected with a rival firm and
since the branch office was losing, TWS closed the branch office. Sevilla nor any of
her employees could not enter the locked branch office, hence a complaint was filed
against Noguera. This complaint was dismissed by the trial court for lack of interest
of the parties.
Sevilla refiled her case with TWS as respondent. She claimed that she was not an
employee of TWS and that a joint venture was entered into by the parties. Eliseo
Canilao (Canilao), representing TWS, insisted that Sevilla was a mere employee
under TWS.
The trial court ruled in favor TWS. Being the true lessee, it had the prerogative to
close and padlock the premises as well as the choice to terminate the contract of
lease with Noguera. The CA affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
Issue: Whether or not Sevilla is an employee of TWS.
Ruling: No. Sevilla is not an employee of TWS. She is an agent of TWS.
Sevilla is not an employee of TWS. The law and jurisprudence laid out a variety of
tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Generally,
the control test had been relied on by many courts. In this test, the employer
reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to
be used in reach such end.
The records of the case will show that Sevilla was not subject to control by TWS. In a
contracted entered between the two parties, Sevilla bound herself in solidum as and
for rental payments. When the branch office was opened, she pursued the business
while relying on her own gifts and capabilities. The facts of the case would also
show that she did not recognize that a joint venture was agreed upon.
The Supreme Court held that in manning TWS, Sevilla rendered her services in
representation of the former. Her work in soliciting air lines was done for and on
behalf of principal, TWS. As compensation for said service, she received a four
percent (4%) commission. However, the agency between the parties is one coupled
with interest and cannot be revoked at will by the principal. It appears that Sevilla is
a bona fide travel agent herself and has acquired interest in the business entrusted
to her. This is evident when she continued business operations even when TWS
opted to close the branch office. The unwarranted revocation made by TWS entitles
Sevilla to damages.
