CITIZENS’ LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS V. ABBAS

CITIZENS’ LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS V. ABBAS

G.R. No. L-21212

23 September 1966

PONENTE: DIZON, J.

FACTS:

Respondent-spouses, owners and operators of auto-calesas in Davao City, filed a complaint with the CFI of Davao to restrain the Union and its members, who were drivers of the spouses in said businesses, from interfering with its operation, from committing certain acts complained of in connection therewith, and to recover damages. The complaint alleged that the defendants named therein used to lease the auto calesas of the spouses on a daily rental basis. When the spouses refused to recognize the alleged lessees as employees and also refused to bargain with it on that basis, the Union declared a strike. Since then, they had paralyzed the business operations of the said spouses through threats, intimidation, and violence.

Petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the respondent-spouses with the Court of Industrial Relations on the ground, among others, of the latter’s refusal to bargain with them. They also filed a motion to declare the writ of preliminary injunction void on the ground that it had already expired.

ISSUE: May the petitioners in this case, as “lessees” of the auto-calesas be considered employees?

RULING: YES.

"This case falls squarely within our ruling in National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, 52 O.G., No. 4, 1933, wherein this Court held that a driver of a jeep who operates the same under the boundary system is considered an employee within the meaning of the law and as such the case comes under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.

In that case, Benedicto Dinglasan was the owner and operator of TPU jeepneys which were driven by petitioner under verbal contracts that they will pay P7.50 for 10 hours use under the so called 'boundary system/ The drivers did not receive salaries or wages from the owners Their day's earnings were the excess over the P7.50 they paid for the use of the jeepneys. In the event that they did not earn more, the owner did not have to pay them anything. In holding that the employer-employee relationship existed between the owner of the jeepneys and the drivers even if the latter worked under the boundary system, this Court said:

“The only features that would make the relationship of lessor and lessee between the respondent, owner of the jeeps, and the drivers, members of the petitioner union, are the fact that he does not pay them any fixed wage but their compensation is the excess of the total amount of fares earned or collected by them over and above the amount of P7.50 which they agreed to pay to the respondent. and the fact that the gasoline burned by the jeeps is for the account of the drivers. These two features are not, however, sufficient to withdraw the relationship, between them from that of employer-employee, because the estimated earnings for 'fares must be over and above the amount they agreed to pay to the respondent for a ten-hour shift or ten-hour a day operation of the jeeps. Not having any interest in the business because they did not invest anything in the acquisition of the jeeps and did not participate in the management thereof: their service as drivers of the jeeps being their only contribution to the business, the relationship of lessor and lessee, cannot be sustained.”