Sevilla vs CA

Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals 160 SCRA 171

FACTS: On the strength of a contract, Tourist orl! Service "nc. #TS$ lease! the pre%ises  &elonging to 'rs. Segun!ina (oguera for the for%er)s use as a &ranch office. *ina Sevilla &oun! herself soli!aril+ lia&le ith TS for the pro%pt pa+%ent of the %onthl+ rentals thereon. hen the &ranch office as opene!, it as run &+ appellant Sevilla pa+a&le to TS &+ an+ airline for  an+ fare &rought in on the efforts of Sevilla, - as to go to Sevilla an! / as to &e ithhel!  &+ TS. TS appears to have &een infor%e! that Sevilla as connecte! ith a rival fir%, the hilippine Travel ureau, an!, since the &ranch office as an+ho losing, the TS consi!ere! closing !on its office. To To resolutions of the TS &oar! of !irectors ere  passe! to a&olish the office of the %anager an! vice presi!ent of the &ranch office an! authori2ing the corporate secretar+ to receive the properties in the sai! &ranch office. Su&se3uentl+, the corporate secretar+ ent to the &ranch office, an! fin!ing the pre%ises loc4e! an! &eing una&le to contact Sevilla, pa!loc4e! the pre%ises to protect the interests of  TS. hen neither Sevilla nor her e%plo+ees coul! enter the loc4e! pre%ises, she file! a co%plaint against TS ith a pra+er for the issuance of a %an!ator+ preli%inar+ in5unction. The trial court !is%isse! the case hol!ing that TS, &eing the true lessee, as ithin its  prerogative to ter%inate the lease an! pa!loc4 the pre%ises. "t li4eise foun! that Sevilla as a %ere e%plo+ee of TS an! as such, as &oun! &+ the acts of her e%plo+er. The CA affir%e!. ence this petition.

"SS8: hether or not there as an e%plo+er9e%plo+ee e %plo+er9e%plo+ee relationship &eteen TS an! Sevilla

R*"(:  (O(8. "t as a principal9agent relationship. The recor!s sho that petitioner, Sevilla, as not su&5ect to control &+ the private respon!ent TS. "n the first place, un!er the contract of lease, she ha! &oun! herself in soli!u% for rental  pa+%ents, an arrange%ent that oul! &elie clai%s of a %aster9servant relationship. That !oes not %a4e her an e%plo+ee of TS, since a true e%plo+ee cannot &e %a!e to part ith his on %one+ in pursuance of his e%plo+er)s e%plo +er)s &usiness, or otherise, assu%e an+ lia&ilit+ thereof. "n the secon! place, hen the &ranch office as opene!, the sa%e as run &+ the appellant Sevilla pa+a&le to TS &+ an+ airline for an+ fare &rought in on the effort of Sevilla. Thus, it cannot &e sai! that Sevilla as un!er the control of TS. Sevilla in pursuing the  &usiness, relie! on her on capa&ilities. "t is further a!%itte! that Sevilla as not in the co%pan+)s pa+roll. For her efforts, she retaine! - in co%%issions fro% airline &oo4ings, the re%a re%ain inin ing g / going going to TS. TS. nli nli4e 4e an e%pl e%plo+ o+ee ee,, ho ho earn earnss a fi;e fi;e! ! sala salar+ r+,, she she earn earne! e! co%pensation in fluctuating a%ount !epen!ing on her &oo4ing successes. The fact that Sevilla ha! &een !esignate!