31.
JARDIN VS NLRC, 326 SCRA 299
FACTS:
Petitioners were drivers of “Goodman Taxi” run by private respondent, Philjama
International Inc. Under a boundary system, the petitioners earned an average of
P400.00 daily. Philjama regularly deducts from petitioners’ daily earnings the amount of
P30.00 supposedly for the washing of the taxi units. Believing that the deduction is
illegal, petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect their rights and interests.
Learning about the plan of petitioners, Philjama refused to let petitioners drive
their taxicabs thereafter. Aggrieved, petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint
against private respondent for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and illegal
deduction of washing fees. The labor arbiter dismissed said complaint for lack of merit.
On appeal, the NLRC (public respondent herein), reversed and set aside the judgment
of the labor arbiter. It declared that petitioners are employees of private respondent,
and as such, their dismissal must be for just cause and after due process.
Philjam’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Remaining hopeful, Philjam filed
another motion for reconsideration. This time, the NLRC granted their motion for
reconsideration. It ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over the case as petitioners and private
respondent have no employer-employee relationship. It held that the relationship of the
parties is leasehold which is covered by the Civil Code rather than the Labor Code. The
petitioner-drivers sought reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision but was denied.
Hence, the petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship between the taxi
drivers and Philjama.
2. Whether or not the petitioner-drivers were illegally dismissed from employment
when Philjama refused to let petitioners drive their taxicabs when they reported
for work on August 6, 1991, and on succeeding days.
3. Whether or not the deduction of P30.00 from petitioners’ daily earnings for the
washing of the taxi units is illegal.
RULING:
1. Yes. The relationship between Philjama on one hand and the taxi drivers on the
other, under the boundary system, is that of employer-employee.
In the determination the existence of employer-employee relationship, the
Supreme Court has applied the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of
control the employees conduct." Among the four requisites, "control” is deemed the
most important that the other requisites may even be disregarded. Under the control
test, an employer-employee relationship exists if the "employer" has reserved the right
to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work done but also as to the
means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Otherwise, no such
relationship exists.
In a number of cases settled by the SC, between jeepney operators and jeepney
drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter. The management of
the business is in the owner's hands. The owner as holder of the certificate of public
convenience must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the
franchising authority and the rules promulgated as regards its operation. Now, 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 operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship
between them from that of employer and employee. We have applied by analogy the
above stated doctrine to the relationship between owners/operators and taxi drivers.
Hence, petitioners are undoubtedly employees of Philjam because as taxi drivers they
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of their employer.
2. Yes. The termination of employment effected by Philjama was illegal.
As consistently held by this Court, termination of employment must be effected in
accordance with law. The just and authorized causes for termination of employment
are enumerated under Articles 282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. The
requirement of notice and hearing is set-out in Article 277 (b) of the said Code.
Hence, petitioners, being employees of Philjama, can be dismissed only for just
and authorized cause, and after affording them notice and hearing prior
to termination. In the instant case, private respondent had no valid cause to
terminate the employment of petitioners. Neither were there two written notices
sent by private respondent informing each of the petitioners that they had been
dismissed from work. These lack of valid cause and failure on the part of Philjama
to comply with the twin-notice requirement underscored the illegality surrounding
petitioners' dismissal.
Under the law, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled
to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to
the time of his actual reinstatement.
3. With regard to the amount deducted daily by private respondent from petitioners for
washing of the taxi units, the SC viewed the same as not illegal in the context of the
law. Note that after a tour of duty, it is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit
he has driven to the same clean condition when he took it out. Car washing after a
tour of duty is indeed a practice in the taxi industry and is in fact dictated by fair
play. Hence, the drivers are not entitled to reimbursement of washing charges.
