NELLY ACTA MARTINEZ,
petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DOMINADOR CORRO, PASTOR
CORRO, CELESTINO CORRO, LUIS CORRO, EREBERTO CORRO, JAIME CRUZ, WENCESLAO
DELVO, GREGORIO DELVO, HERMIJIAS COLIBAO, JOSE OGANA and ALONSO ALBAO,
respondents.
G. R. No. 117495 May 29, 1997
FACTS:
Raul Martinez was operator of 4 taxicab units -- 2 under the
business name PAMA TX and 2 under the name P.J. Tiger TX. Private respondents
all worked for him as drivers. On March
18, 1992 Raul Martinez died leaving behind his mother, Nelly Acta Martinez, as
his sole heir.
Private respondents lodged a complaint against Raul Martinez
and petitioner Nelly Acta Martinez for violation of PD 851 and illegal
dismissal. They alleged that they have been regular drivers of Raul Martinez
since October 20, 1989, earning no less than P400.00 per day driving 24 hours
every other day. For the duration of employment not once did they receive a 13th
month pay. On June 22, 1992 petitioner informed them that because of difficulty
in maintaining the business, she was selling the units together with the
corresponding franchises. However, petitioner did not proceed with plan and
instead assigned the units to other drivers.
Petitioner avers that the private respondents are not
entitled to 13th month pay as the IRR of PD 851 is explicit that
employers of those who are paid on purely boundary basis are not covered
therein and that the relationship between her son and private respondents was
not that of employer-employee but of lessor-lessee. The operation of the
business ceased upon the death of her son and that she did not continue the
business because she did not know how to run it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not taxi drivers or those paid based on boundary
system are entitled to 13th month pay
RULING:
In NLRC v. Dinglasan, the court ruled that the relationship
between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and jeepney drivers on the other under
the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. In
the lease of chattels, the lessor loses complete control over the chattel
leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he
would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney
owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and
control over the latter. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages
but get only that in excess of the so-called “boundary” they pay to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from
that of employer and employee.
The doctrine is applicable by analogy to the present case.
Thus, private respondents were employees of Raul Martinez because they had been
engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer.
Comments
Post a Comment