EDWINA LEMA BEECH AND LEONARDO MANECLANG, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 93 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CIT…

Petitioners are engaged in training local talents for overseas
employment under the name Veam Enterprises.

In September 1986, private respondent Leticia Badar
entered into an agreement with petitioner Edwina Lema
Beech as general manager and representative
of Veam Enterprises, owned by co-petitioner Leonardo Maneclang, whereby the former dubbed as production manager
of said enterprise shall be given fifty dollars ($50.00) per talent as regular
commission and four hundred pesos (P400.00), as processing fee per talent that
went to the principal of private respondent.

Respondent Badar was able to send 79 talents to petitioners who
were confirmed to leave for Japan, hence,
respondent is entitled to a commission of P79,000, as regular
commission, and P100,000, as processing
fee of the 25 talents that went
to respondent’s principal.  However,
petitioners only paid respondent
P20,000.00, as her regular commission and P5,600.00 for the processing of the
25 talents, leaving an unpaid balance of P59,000, as regular commission and P4,400, as processing fee.

Respondent sent a demand
letter (p. 23, Rollo) to petitioner to make good the
claim but petitioner, despite receipt thereof still failed to pay the same.

Thereupon, on February 24, 1987, respondent Badar
filed a complaint for sum of money in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against petitioner.

On July 24, 1987, finding that respondent had substantiated her
causes of action with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence, the trial
court rendered judgment in favor of respondent ordering the petitioner:

“1. 
To pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the total amount of
P63,400.00, representing the unpaid regular commission and processing fee;

“2.  To
pay plaintiff, jointly and severally,
the amount of P10,000.00, by way of attorney’s fees; and

“3.  To pay the costs.”

(p. 2, Decision; p. 32, Rollo)

Petitioners now raise the issue that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter and/or nature of the action or suit since the case is one for money
claims arising from employer-employee relationship and therefore it is
the labor arbiters who have the
exclusive and original jurisdiction.

The petition is totally
unmeritorious.

Firstly, private respondent is an independent contractor. 
Badar was not a regular salary paid
employee but earns on a per
head/talent commission basis.  She can
work as she pleases,
on her own schedule, terms and conditions.

“The principal consideration in determining whether a workman is an employee or an
independent contractor is the right to control the manner of doing the work, and it is not the
actual exercise of the right by interfering with the work, but the right to control, which constitutes
the test.” (Feati
University vs. Bautista, 18 SCRA
1191)

And secondly, petitioners are estopped
from raising the defense of the presence of employer-employee relationship
since petitioners in their Answer to the Complaint of private respondent
stated:

“As stated above, plaintiff
(now private respondent) was never an employee of defendant (now
petitioner) being that employee-employer relationship never existed between
defendant and plaintiff and therefore plaintiff could not be the production
manager of defendant’s veam enterprises instead Plaintiff is a free
lance talent scout.” (p. 26, Rollo)

The trial court had jurisdiction over the case at bar since the
suit arose from a contract between petitioners and independent contractor Badar and not one under an employer-employee relationship.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.