ISABELO DOCE vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and DADO JADAO

ISABELO DOCE vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and DADO JADAO

GR No. L-9417

Date: December 22, 1958

PONENTE: Bautista Angelo, J.

FACTS:

Dado Jadao filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission a claim for compensation against Isabelo Doce for injuries he suffered in an accident that occurred while working as a conductor of a bus belonging to the latter under a boundary system.

His average daily earnings as conductor was P4.00, working five days a week. On June 11, 1953, while acting as such conductor, Jadao was pinned by two buses on Quezon Boulevard, Manila, suffering injuries on the right leg, head and left ear. He was treated in the North General Hospital and in the National Orthopedic Hospital, and as a result he suffered temporary total disability and a partial loss of the use of his right leg.

Doce interposed the defense that there was no employer-employee relationship between him and Jadao and hence the Commission has no jurisdiction to act on the claim.

ISSUE: Whether the employer-employee relationship existed between the owner of the bus and the conductor considering that the latter worked under a boundary system as explained above and is not paid directly by the former.

RULING: YES. This case falls squarely within our ruling in National Labor Union vs. Dinglasan, 52 Off. Gaz., 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.

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.