Jardin v. NLRC (G.R. No.

119268)
Facts:
Petitioners were drivers of private respondent’s 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 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 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.
Villamaria, Jr. vs. CA
G.R. No. 165881. April 19, 2006.
Employer-Employee Relationship; Conditions of Employment
Facts:
Oscar Villamaria, Jr. operated passenger jeepneys by employing drivers on a “boundary basis.” In 1997, Villamaria
agreed to sell the jeepney to driver Bustamante under the “boundary-hulog scheme”. Their contract stipulated the
prohibitions, compliance and restrictions.
Bustamante continued driving the jeepney under the supervision and control of Villamaria. But later he failed to
comply with his obligations so that notice of compliance and warning were ensued. Until in 2000, Villamaria took back
the jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the vehicle. Hence, Bustamante filed a complaint
for Illegal Dismissal.
The LA ruled in his favor, but the NLRC reversed the Order for the reason that the juridical relationship between
Bustamante and Villamaria was that of vendor and vendee. However, the CA affirmed the LA on the ground that the
relationship between Villamaria and Bustamante was dual: that of vendor-vendee and employer-employee.
Villamaria averred that their contract was a combination of vendor-vendee and employer-employee because they
had clearly entered into a conditional deed of sale over the jeepney so that their employer-employee relationship had
been transformed into that of vendor-vendee.
Issue:
WoN the existence of a boundary-hulog agreement negates the employer-employee relationship between the
vendor and vendee.
Ruling:
No, The Kasunduan did not extinguish the employer-employee relationship of the parties extant before the
execution of said deed.
Under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was created
between petitioner and respondent: that of employer-employee and vendor-vendee.
The fact that the driver does not receive fixed wages but only the excess of the “boundary” given to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to change the relationship between them. Indubitably, the driver performs activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the owner/operator.
Thus, the petition is denied.
MAKATI HABERDASHERY, INC., JORGE LEDESMA and CECILIO G. INOCENCIO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, etc., respondents. G.R. Nos. 83380-81 November 15, 1989

Facts:
The complainants were working for Haberda as tailors, seamstress, sewers, basters and plantsadoras paid on a piece-
rate basis with allowance when they report for work before 9:30am everyday (Monday-Saturday) On July 20, 1984, the
Sandigan ng Manggagawang Pilipino, a labor organization of the respondent workers, filed a complaint docketed as
NLRC NCR Case No. 7-2603-84 for (a) underpayment of the basic wage; (b) underpayment of living allowance; (c) non-
payment of overtime work; (d) non-payment of holiday pay; (e) non-payment of service incentive pay; (f) 13th month
pay; and (g) benefits provided for under Wage Orders Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

During the pendency, Haberda dismiss the workers for the alleged job acceptance from another, which was denied by
the workers and countered by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. Which was granted by NLRC.

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner Haberdashery and
respondent workers?

HELD:
Yes, there is employer-employee relationship. The facts at bar indubitably reveal that the most important requisite of
control is present. As gleaned from the operations of petitioner, when a customer enters into a contract with the
haberdashery or its proprietor, the latter directs an employee who may be a tailor, pattern maker, sewer or
"plantsadora" to take the customer's measurements, and to sew the pants, coat or shirt as specified by the customer.
Supervision is actively manifested in all these aspects — the manner and quality of cutting, sewing and ironing.

It is evident in the memorandum, that the petitioner has reserved the right to control its employees not only as to the
result but also the means and methods by which the same are to be accomplished. That private respondents are regular
employees is further proven by the fact that they have to report for work regularly from 9:30 a.m. to6:00 or 7:00 p.m.
and are paid an additional allowance of P 3.00 daily if they report for work before 9:30 a.m. and which is forfeited when
they arrive at or after 9:30 a.m.
CAURDANETAAN PIECE WORKERS UNION VS. NLRC
[G.R. No. 113542 and G.R. No. 114911, February 24, 1998]

FACTS: Petitioner Union worked as “cargador” at the warehouse and rice mill of private respondent. They were paid on
a piece-rate basis. Sometime in 1992, when Corfarm denied some of the benefits to these cargadores, the latter
organized petitioner Union. Upon learning of the same, Corfarm barred the union’s members for working with them and
replaced them with non-union members. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE
and simultaneously filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, ULP, refund, illegal deductions, payment of wage differential,
various pecuniary benefits provided by law, damaged, legal interest, reinstatement and attorney’s fees against Corfarm.

The petition for certification election was granted but was later on dismissed for lack of employer-employee relationship
on the ground of lack of the element of control. On the other hand, LA found illegal dismissal and consolidated the two
(2) cases.

ISSUE: W/N an employer-employee relationship between petitioner union and corfarm existed?

HELD:
Yes.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relation, this Court has consistently applied the “four-fold” test
which has the following elements: (1) the power to hire, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to dismiss, and (4) the
power to control -- the last being the most important element.

Our examination of the case records indubitably shows the presence of an employer-employee relationship. It is
undeniable that petitioner’s members worked as cargadores for private respondent. They loaded, unloaded and piled
sacks of palay from the warehouses to the cargo trucks and from the cargo trucks to the buyers. This work is directly
related, necessary and desirable to the operations of Corfarm. Moreover, Corfarm did not even allege, much less prove,
that petitioner’s members have “substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, [and]
work premises, among others.” Furthermore, said respondent did not contradict petitioner’s allegation that it paid
wages directly to these workers without the intervention of any third-party independent contractor. It also wielded the
power of dismissal over petitioners; in fact, its exercise of this power was the progenitor of the Second Case. Clearly, the
workers are not independent contractors. Applying Article 280 of the Labor Code, we hold that the CPWU members
were regular employees of private respondent. Their tasks were essential in the usual business of private respondent.
ORLANDO FARMS GROWERS ASSOCIATION/GLICERIO AÑOVER vs NLRC

FACTS:
Orlando Farms Growers Association is an association of landowners engaged in the production of export quality bananas
established for the sole purpose of dealing collectively on matters concerning technical services, canal maintenance,
irrigation and pest control, among others. Respondents were hired as farm workers by several member-landowners but;
nonetheless, were made to perform functions as packers and harvesters in the plantation of petitioner association.
Respondents were dismissed on various dates. Petitioner alleged that respondents were not its employees and but of
the individual landowners which fact can easily be deduced from the payments made by the latter of respondent's SSS
contributions. Moreover, it could have never exercised the power of control over them with regard to the manner and
method by which the work was to be accomplished, which authority remain vested with the landowners despite
becoming members thereof.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not EER exists

HELD:
YES.

The following are generally considered in the determination of the existence of an employer- employee relationship; (1)
the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of
dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control; of these four, the last one being the most important.

The following circumstances which support the existence of employer-employee relations cannot be denied. During the
subsistence of the association, several circulars and memoranda were issued concerning, among other things, absences
without formal request, loitering in the work area and disciplinary measures with which every worker is enjoined to
comply. Furthermore, the employees were issued identification cards. While the original purpose of the formation of the
association was merely to provide the landowners a unified voice in dealing with Stanfilco, petitioner however exceeded
its avowed intentions when its subsequent actions re-enforced only too clearly its admitted role of employer.