Angeles Jardin, et al. vs. NLRC and PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

G.R. No. 119268

February 23, 2000

Facts: Petitioners were drivers of private respondents taxicabs under the boundary
system whose earnings were regularly deducted washing fee for the taxi units.
Petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect their rights and interests on the
belief that the deductions made were illegal. Upon learning, respondent refused to let
petitioners drive their taxicabs when they reported for work. Aggrieved, petitioners filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter but the latter dismissed said
complaint. On appeal, the NLRC tribunal declared that petitioners are employees of
private respondent. On reconsideration however, the decision was reversed by the
NLRC tribunal and held that no employer-employee relationship between the parties
exists.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner taxi drivers are employees of respondent company.

Ruling: Yes. In a number of cases decided by this Court, we 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 case
of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and
control over the latter. The management of the business is in the owners 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 owner/operator is not
sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and
employee. We have applied by analogy the doctrine to the relationships between bus
owner/operator and bus conductor, auto-calesa owner/operator and driver, and recently
between taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers. Hence, petitioners are undoubtedly
employees of private respondent because as taxi drivers they perform activities which
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer.