NATIONAL LABOR UNION VS. BENEDICTO DINGLASAN

NATIONAL LABOR UNION VS. BENEDICTO DINGLASAN

G.R. NO. L-7945

23 March, 1959

Padilla, J.

FACTS:

Respondent Dinglasan is the owner and operator of TPU jeepneys plying between España-Quiapo-Pier and vice versa. Petitioners are drivers who had verbal contracts with Respondent for the use of the latter’s jeepneys upon payment of P7.50 for 10 hours use, otherwise known as the “boundary system”. Said drivers did not receive salaries or wages from Mr. Dinglasan; their day’s earnings being the excess over the P7.50 that they paid for the use of the jeepneys. In the event that they did not earn more, Respondent did not have to pay them anything; Mr. Dinglasan’s supervision over the drivers consisted in inspection of the jeepneys that they took out when they passed his gasoline station for water, checking the route prescribed by the Public Service Commission, or whether any driver was driving recklessly and washing and changing the tires of jeepneys.

Petitioners filed a complaint against respondent for unfair labor practices.

ISSUE: WON there is an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent.

RULING: YES. The drivers did not invest a single centavo in the business and the Respondent is the exclusive owner of the jeeps. The management of the business is in the Respondent’s hands. For even if the drivers of the jeeps take material possession of the jeeps, still the Respondent as owner thereof and holder of a certificate of public convenience is entitled to exercise, as he does and under the law he must, supervision over the drivers by seeing to it that they follow the route prescribed by the Public Service Commission and the rules and regulations promulgated by it as regards their operation. And when they pass by the gasoline station of the Respondent, checking by his employees on the water tank, oil, and tire pressure is done.

The only features that would make the relationship of lessor and lessee between the Respondent and the drivers, members of the union, as contended by the Respondent, 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, the owner of the jeeps, 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. In the lease of chattels the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot make bad use thereof, for he would be responsible for damages to the lessor should he do so. In this case there is a supervision and a sort of control that the owner of the jeeps exercises over the drivers. It is an attempt by ingenious scheme to withdraw the relationship between the owner of the jeeps and the drivers thereof from the operation of the labor laws enacted to promote industrial peace.