Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 358 views

    Century Properties, Inc. Vs Edwin J. Babiano and Emma B. Concepcion, 795 SCRA 671, G.R. No. 220978 (July 05, 2016)

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    This case involved Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion suing their former employer, 71 Century Properties, Inc. (CPI), for unpaid commissions and damages after being terminated. While their contracts stated they were independent contractors and not employees, the Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on CPI hiring, promoting, paying salaries/allowances, and having the power to discipline them. The Court ruled Babiano breached his confidentiality agreement by seeking work with a competitor before resigning. It also ruled CPI was liable to pay unpaid commissions to Concepcion as it found an employer-employee relationship existed between them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Century Properties, Inc. Vs Edwin J. Babiano and Emma B. Concepcion, 795 SCRA 671, G.R. No. 220978 (July 05, 2016)

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    358 views2 pages
    This case involved Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion suing their former employer, 71 Century Properties, Inc. (CPI), for unpaid commissions and damages after being terminated. While their contracts stated they were independent contractors and not employees, the Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on CPI hiring, promoting, paying salaries/allowances, and having the power to discipline them. The Court ruled Babiano breached his confidentiality agreement by seeking work with a competitor before resigning. It also ruled CPI was liable to pay unpaid commissions to Concepcion as it found an employer-employee relationship existed between them.

    Original Description:

    ObliCon

    Original Title

    Century Properties, Inc. vs Edwin J. Babiano and Emma B. Concepcion, 795 SCRA 671, G.R. No. 220978 (July 05, 2016)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion suing their former employer, 71 Century Properties, Inc. (CPI), for unpaid commissions and damages after being terminated. While their contracts stated they were independent contractors and not employees, the Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on CPI hiring, promoting, paying salaries/allowances, and having the power to discipline them. The Court ruled Babiano breached his confidentiality agreement by seeking work with a competitor before resigning. It also ruled CPI was liable to pay unpaid commissions to Concepcion as it found an employer-employee relationship existed between them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    358 views2 pages

    Century Properties, Inc. Vs Edwin J. Babiano and Emma B. Concepcion, 795 SCRA 671, G.R. No. 220978 (July 05, 2016)

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    This case involved Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion suing their former employer, 71 Century Properties, Inc. (CPI), for unpaid commissions and damages after being terminated. While their contracts stated they were independent contractors and not employees, the Court found an employer-employee relationship existed based on CPI hiring, promoting, paying salaries/allowances, and having the power to discipline them. The Court ruled Babiano breached his confidentiality agreement by seeking work with a competitor before resigning. It also ruled CPI was liable to pay unpaid commissions to Concepcion as it found an employer-employee relationship existed between them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ObliCon 3rd 71 Century Properties, Inc. Vs Edwin J. Babiano and Emma B.

    Concepcion, 795 SCRA 671, G.R. No. 220978 (July 05, 2016)

    Doctrine:
    The existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by
    expressly repudiating it in the management contract and providing therein that
    the "employee" is an independent contractor when the terms of the agreement
    clearly show otherwise.

    Facts:
    Babiano was hired by CPI as Director for Sales who eventually was
    promoted for VP for Sales. He is receiving a salary, allowance and sales
    commission. His employment contract contains a clauses which bars him from
    disclosing confidential information to business competing with CPI while he is
    employed and after 1 year from termination or resignation, otherwise his
    compensation will be forfeited. Concepcion was hired as a Sales Agent who was
    promoted to Project Director. She signed a Contract of Agency for Project Director
    and receives a monthly subsidy, commission and incentive.

    She signed two contracts and both stipulated that no employee employer
    relationship exist. After receiving that Babiano provided a competitor with
    information and being AWOL for 5 days, CPI sent a notice to explain why he
    should not be charged with disloyalty, conflict of interest and breach of trust.

    He tendered his resignation but later he was terminated 8 days later. He


    revealed he was accepted as VP in a competitor company. Two days before
    Babiano tendered, Concepcion also tendered.

    Babiano and Concepcion filed before the NLRC for non-payment of


    commissions and damages against CPI. CPI maintained that the they are just
    agents tasked with selling projects, there was due process and termination was
    based on just cause.
    The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of CPI. On Appeal, the NLRC concurred with
    the Labor Arbtiter, that Babiano’s acts constituted just cause for termination
    however forefeiture is confiscatory and unreasonable. CPI went to CA, while the
    affirmed the NLRC ruling, it ruled that there is a proper money claim from
    employee-employer relationship. Hence this appeal.

    The Issue Before the Court


    1. WON there was a breach of contract?
    2. WON the CPI would be liable for unpaid commissions?

    Ruling of the Court:


    1. Yes. The Confidentiality and Non-Compete Clause is not limited to acts
    done after the cessation of employer-employee relationship. Babiano
    categorically admitted that he sought employment with a competitor
    before his formal resignation. This is a glaring violation of the
    Confidentiality and Non-Compete Clause.

    2. Yes. There exists an employer-employee relationship. This is proven by (a)


    CPI hired and promoted Concepcion (b) the monthly "subsidy" and cash
    incentives that Concepcion was receiving from CPI are actually
    remuneration in the concept of wages (c) CPI had the power to discipline or
    even dismiss Concepcion (d) CPI possessed the power of control because in
    the performance of her duties as Project Director, she did not exercise
    independent discretion. While the employment contract is denominated as
    "Contract of Agency for Project Director" the existence of employer-
    employee relations could not be negated by the mere expedient of
    repudiating it in a contract. since there exists an employer-employee
    relationship between Concepcion and CPI, thus the CA is correct in ruling
    that Labor Code, it nonetheless failed to include all of respondents' earned
    commissions thus, necessitating the increase in award of unpaid
    commissions in Concepcion's favor.

    You might also like