Cases Relating to Taxi Drivers

8/12/2019 Cases Relating to Taxi Drivers

1/30

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PRIMO E. CAONG !R. A"E#ANDER !. $RES%&IO an' "ORIANO D. DA"&(ON

Petitioners

) *ersus )

AVE"INO REG&A"OS

Respon'ent.

G.R. No. +,-/0

Present1

CARPIO !.

Chairperson


2/30

NAC2&RA

PERA"$A

A3AD an'

MENDO4A !!.

Promul5ate'1

!anuar6 /7 /8++

9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))9

DECISION

NAC2&RA !.1

Is the polic6 of suspen'in5 'ri*ers pen'in5 pa6ment of arrears in their boun'ar6 obli5ations

reasonable: $he Court of Appeals ;CA< ans=ere' the >uestion in the affirmati*e in its

Decision?+@ 'ate' December + /887 an' Resolution 'ate' !ul6 +7 /88,. In this petition for

re*ie= on certiorari =e tae a secon' loo at the issue an' 'etermine =hether the situation atbar merits the rela9ation of the application of the sai' polic6.


3/30

Petitioners Primo E. Caon5 !r. ;Caon5


4/30

man'ator6 conference to reinstate them =as an insincere afterthou5ht as sho=n b6 the =arnin5

5i*en b6 respon'ent that if the6 fail to remit the full amount of the boun'ar6 6et a5ain the6 =ill

be barre' from 'ri*in5 the Beepne6s. Petitioners >uestione' respon'entFs polic6 of automaticall6

'ismissin5 the 'ri*ers =ho fail to remit the full amount of the boun'ar6 as it alle5e'l6 ;a< *iolates

their ri5ht to 'ue process ;b< 'oes not constitute a Bust cause for 'ismissal ;c< 'isre5ar's the

realit6 that there are 'a6s =hen the6 coul' not raise the full amount of the boun'ar6 because ofthe scarcit6 of passen5ers.

In his Position Paper respon'ent alle5e' that petitioners =ere lessees of his *ehicles an' not

his emplo6ees hence the "abor Arbiter ha' no Buris'iction. 2e claime' that he notice' that

some of his lessees inclu'in5 petitioners =ere not full6 pa6in5 the 'ail6 rental of his Beepne6s.

In a list =hich he attache' to the Position Paper it =as sho=n that petitioners ha' actuall6

incurre' arrears since the6 starte' =orin5. $he list sho=e' that Caon5Fs total arrears

amounte' to P+8+.88 that of $res>uio =as P+8,78.88 =hile that of Dalu6on =as

P70-8.88. 2e ma'e in>uiries an' 'isco*ere' that his lessees contracte' loans =ith thir'parties an' use' the income of the Beepne6s in pa6in5 the loans. $hus on No*ember /88+

he 5athere' all the lessees in a meetin5 an' informe' them that effecti*e No*ember /88+

those =ho =oul' fail to full6 pa6 the 'ail6 rental =oul' not be allo=e' to rent a Beepne6 on the

follo=in5 'a6. 2e e9plaine' to them that the Beepne6s =ere ac>uire' on installment basis an'

that he =as pa6in5 the monthl6 amortiHations throu5h the lease income. Most of the lessees

alle5e'l6 accepte' the con'ition an' pai' their arrears. Petitioners ho=e*er 'i' not settle their

arrears. orse their remittances =ere a5ain short of the re>uire' boun'ar6 fee. Petitioner

Dalu6onFs rent pa6ment =as short of P/8.88 on No*ember /88+ an' P08.88 on No*ember ,

/88+. On No*ember 7 /88+ it =as $res>uio =ho incurre' an arrear of P+88.88. On No*ember

, an' - /88+ petitioner Caon5 =as in arrear of P8.88 an' P+88.88 respecti*el6. Respon'ent

stresse' that 'urin5 the man'ator6 conference he manifeste' that he =oul' rene= his lease

=ith petitioners if the6 =oul' pa6 the arrears the6 incurre' 'urin5 the sai' 'ates.?7@

On March + /88 the "abor Arbiter 'eci'e' the case in fa*or of respon'ent thus1

2EREORE Bu'5ment is hereb6 ren'ere' DISMISSING the abo*e)entitle' cases for

lac of merit. 2o=e*er respon'ent Re5ualos is 'irecte' to accept bac complainants Caon5

$res>uio an' Dalu6on as re5ular 'ri*ers of his passen5er Beepne6s after complainants ha*e

pai' their respecti*e arreara5es the6 ha*e incurre' in the remittance of their respecti*e

boun'ar6 pa6ments in the amount of P+8.88 P+88.88 an' P+88.88. Complainants if still

intereste' to =or as 'ri*ers are hereb6 or'ere' to report to respon'ent Re5ualos =ithin fifteen

;+< 'a6s from the finalit6 of this 'ecision. Other=ise failure to 'o so means forfeiture of their

respecti*e emplo6ments.


5/30

Other claims of complainants are 'ismisse' for lac of merit.

SO ORDERED.?,@

Accor'in5 to the "abor Arbiter an emplo6er)emplo6ee relationship e9iste' bet=een

respon'ent an' petitioners. $he latter =ere not 'ismisse' consi'erin5 that the6 coul' 5o bac to

=or once the6 ha*e pai' their arrears. $he "abor Arbiter opine' that as a 'isciplinar6

measure it is proper to impose a reasonable sanction on 'ri*ers =ho cannot pa6 their boun'ar6

pa6ments. 2e emphasiHe' that respon'ent ac>uire' the Beepne6s on loan or installment basis

an' relie' on the boun'ar6 pa6ments to compl6 =ith his monthl6 amortiHations.?0@

Petitioners appeale' the 'ecision to the National "abor Relations Commission ;N"RC


6/30

respon'ent informe' his emplo6ees inclu'in5 petitioners to strictl6 compl6 =ith the polic6

re5ar'in5 remittances an' =arne' them that the6 =oul' not be allo=e' to tae out the Beepne6s

if the6 'i' not remit the full amount of the boun'ar6.?+@

Dissatisfie' petitioners file' a motion for reconsi'eration but the CA 'enie' the motion in

its Resolution 'ate' !ul6 +7 /88,.?+@

Petitioners are no= before this Court resolutel6 ar5uin5 that the6 =ere ille5all6 'ismisse' b6

respon'ent an' that such 'ismissal =as ma'e in *iolation of the 'ue process re>uirements of

the la=.

$he petition is =ithout merit.

In an action for certiorari petitioner must pro*e not merel6 re*ersible error but 5ra*e abuse of

'iscretion amountin5 to lac or e9cess of Buris'iction on the part of respon'ent. Mere abuse of

'iscretion is not enou5h. It must be sho=n that public respon'ent e9ercise' its po=er in an

arbitrar6 or 'espotic manner b6 reason of passion or personal hostilit6 an' this must be so

patent an' so 5ross as to amount to an e*asion of a positi*e 'ut6 or to a *irtual refusal to

perform the 'ut6 enBoine' or to act at all in contemplation of la=.?+@

As correctl6 hel' b6 the CA petitioners faile' to establish that the N"RC committe' 5ra*e abuse

of 'iscretion in affirmin5 the "abor ArbiterFs rulin5 =hich is supporte' b6 the facts on recor'.

It is alrea'6 settle' that the relationship bet=een Beepne6 o=nersKoperators an' Beepne6 'ri*ers

un'er the boun'ar6 s6stem is that of emplo6er)emplo6ee an' not of lessor)lessee. $he fact that

the 'ri*ers 'o not recei*e fi9e' =a5es but onl6 5et the amount in e9cess of the so)calle'

Lboun'ar6 that the6 pa6 to the o=nerKoperator is not sufficient to ne5ate the relationship

bet=een them as emplo6er an' emplo6ee.?+7@

$he "abor Arbiter the N"RC an' the CA uniforml6 'eclare' that petitioners =ere not 'ismisse'

from emplo6ment but merel6 suspen'e' pen'in5 pa6ment of their arrears. in'in5s of fact of

the CA particularl6 =here the6 are in absolute a5reement =ith those of the N"RC an' the "abor

Arbiter are accor'e' not onl6 respect but e*en finalit6 an' are 'eeme' bin'in5 upon this Court

so lon5 as the6 are supporte' b6 substantial e*i'ence.?+,@


7/30

e ha*e no reason to 'e*iate from such fin'in5s. In'ee' petitionersF suspension cannot be

cate5oriHe' as 'ismissal consi'erin5 that there =as no intent on the part of respon'ent to se*er

the emplo6er)emplo6ee relationship bet=een him an' petitioners. In fact it =as ma'e clear that

petitioners coul' put an en' to the suspension if the6 onl6 pa6 their recent arrears. As it =as

the suspension 'ra55e' on for 6ears because of petitionersF stubborn refusal to pa6. It =oul'

ha*e been 'ifferent if petitioners complie' =ith the con'ition an' respon'ent still refuse' to

rea'mit them to =or. $hen there =oul' ha*e been a clear act of 'ismissal. 3ut such =as not

the case. Instea' of pa6in5 petitioners e*en file' a complaint for ille5al 'ismissal a5ainst

respon'ent.

Respon'entFs polic6 of suspen'in5 'ri*ers =ho fail to remit the full amount of the boun'ar6 =as

fair an' reasonable un'er the circumstances. Respon'ent e9plaine' that he notice' that his

'ri*ers =ere 5ettin5 la9 in remittin5 their boun'ar6 pa6ments an' in fact herein petitioners ha'

alrea'6 incurre' a consi'erable amount of arrears. 2e ha' to put a stop to it as he also relie' on

these boun'ar6 pa6ments to raise the full amount of his monthl6 amortiHations on the Beepne6s.

Demonstratin5 their obstinac6 petitioners on the 'a6s imme'iatel6 follo=in5 the

implementation of the polic6 incurre' 'eficiencies in their boun'ar6 remittances.

It is acno=le'5e' that an emplo6er has free rein an' enBo6s a =i'e latitu'e of 'iscretion to

re5ulate all aspects of emplo6ment inclu'in5 the prero5ati*e to instill 'iscipline on his

emplo6ees an' to impose penalties inclu'in5 'ismissal if =arrante' upon errin5 emplo6ees.

$his is a mana5ement prero5ati*e. In'ee' the manner in =hich mana5ement con'ucts its o=n

affairs to achie*e its purpose is =ithin the mana5ementFs 'iscretion. $he onl6 limitation on the

e9ercise of mana5ement prero5ati*e is that the policies rules an' re5ulations on =or)relate'

acti*ities of the emplo6ees must al=a6s be fair an' reasonable an' the correspon'in5

penalties =hen prescribe' commensurate to the offense in*ol*e' an' to the 'e5ree of the

infraction.?+0@

Petitioners ar5ue that the polic6 is unsoun' as it 'oes not consi'er the times =hen passen5ers

are scarce an' the 'ri*ers are not able to raise the amount of the boun'ar6.

PetitionersF concern relates to the implementation of the polic6 =hich is another matter. A

compan6 polic6 must be implemente' in such manner as =ill accor' social Bustice an'

compassion to the emplo6ee. In case of noncompliance =ith the compan6 polic6 the emplo6er

must consi'er the surroun'in5 circumstances an' the reasons =h6 the emplo6ee faile' to

compl6. hen the circumstances merit the rela9ation of the application of the polic6 then its

noncompliance must be e9cuse'.


8/30

In the present case petitioners merel6 alle5e' that there =ere onl6 fe= passen5ers 'urin5 the

'ates in >uestion. Such e9cuse is not acceptable =ithout an6 proof or at least an e9planation

as to =h6 passen5ers =ere scarce at that time. It is simpl6 a bare alle5ation not =orth6 of

belief. e also fin' the e9cuse unbelie*able consi'erin5 that petitioners incurre' the shorta5es

on separate 'a6s an' it appears that onl6 petitioners faile' to remit the full boun'ar6 pa6ment

on sai' 'ates.

&n'er a boun'ar6 scheme the 'ri*er remits the Lboun'ar6 =hich is a fi9e' amount to the

o=nerKoperator an' 5ets to earn the amount in e9cess thereof. $hus on a 'a6 =hen there are

man6 passen5ers alon5 the route it is the 'ri*er =ho actuall6 benefits from it. It =oul' be unfair

then if 'urin5 the times =hen passen5ers are scarce the o=nerKoperator =ill be ma'e to suffer

b6 not 5ettin5 the full amount of the boun'ar6. &nless clearl6 sho=n or e9plaine' b6 an e*ent

that irre5ularl6 an' ne5ati*el6 affecte' the usual number of passen5ers =ithin the route the

scarcit6 of passen5ers shoul' not e9cuse the 'ri*er from pa6in5 the full amount of the

boun'ar6.

inall6 =e sustain the CAFs fin'in5 that petitioners =ere not 'enie' the ri5ht to 'ue process. e

thus >uote =ith appro*al its 'iscussion on this matter1

2a*in5 establishe' that the case at bench 'oes not in*ol*e termination of emplo6ment e fin'

that the strict e*en ri5i' application of the t=in)notice rule is not =arrante'.

3ut the 'ue process safe5uar's are nonetheless still a*ailable to petitioners.

Due process is not a matter of strict or ri5i' or formulaic process. $he essence of 'ue process is

simpl6 the opportunit6 to be hear' or as applie' to a'ministrati*e procee'in5s an opportunit6

to e9plain oneFs si'e or an opportunit6 to see a reconsi'eration of the action or rulin5

complaine' of. A formal or trial)t6pe hearin5 is not at all times an' in all instances essential as

the 'ue process re>uirements are satisfie' =here the parties are affor'e' fair an' reasonableopportunit6 to e9plain their si'e of the contro*ers6 at han'. 9 9 9.

9 9 9 9


9/30

In the case at bench pri*ate respon'ent upon fin'in5 that petitioners ha' consistentl6 faile' to

remit the full amount of the boun'ar6 con'ucte' a meetin5 on No*ember /88+ informin5

them to strictl6 compl6 =ith the polic6 re5ar'in5 their remittances an' =arne' them to

'iscontinue 'ri*in5 if the6 still faile' to remit the full amount of the boun'ar6.?+-@

2EREORE premises consi'ere' the petition is DENIED. $he Court of Appeals Decision

'ate' December + /887 an' Resolution 'ate' !ul6 +7 /88, are AIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

AN$ONIO ED&ARDO 3. NAC2&RA

Associate !ustice

E CONC&R1

AN$ONIO $. CARPIO

Associate !ustice

Chairperson

DIOSDADO M. PERA"$A


10/30

Associate !ustice

RO3ER$O A. A3AD

Associate !ustice

!OSE CA$RA" MENDO4A

Associate !ustice

A $ $ E S $ A $ I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the abo*e Decision ha' been reache' in consultation

before the case =as assi5ne' to the =riter of the opinion of the CourtFs Di*ision.

AN$ONIO $. CARPIO

Associate !ustice

Chairperson Secon' Di*ision

C E R $ I I C A $ I O N

Pursuant to Section + Article VIII of the Constitution an' the Di*ision Chairpersons

Attestation I certif6 that the conclusions in the abo*e Decision ha' been reache' in consultation

before the case =as assi5ne' to the =riter of the opinion of the CourtFs Di*ision.


11/30

RENA$O C. CORONA

Chief !ustice

?+@ Penne' b6 Associate !ustice Romulo V. 3orBa =ith Associate !ustices Si9to C.

Marella !r. an' Mario V. "opeH concurrin5 rollo pp. 0).

?/@ I'. at -/)-7.

?@ I'. at -0)--.

?@ I'. at +88.

?@ I'. at +88)+8+.

?7@ I'. at ++/)++.

?,@ I'. at ++.

?0@ I'. at +/0)+8.

?-@ I'. at +0.

?+8@ I'. at +07.

?++@ I'. at .

?+/@ I'. at )0.

?+@ I'. at 8)+.

?+@ I'. at 0.

?+@ Sol*ic In'ustrial Corporation *. N"RC , Phil. 8 0 ;+--0


12/30

?+-@ Rollo pp. 8)+.

la=phil

$o'a6 is Satur'a6 !ul6 8, /8+/

Republic of the Philippines

S&PREME CO&R$

Manila

EN 3ANC

G.R. No. ")7- April /8 +-

MAN&E" "ARA E$ A". plaintiffs)appellants

*s.

PE$RONI"O DE" ROSARIO !R. 'efen'ant)appellee.

Manansala an' Manansala for appellants.

Ramon ". Resurreccion for appellee.


13/30

MON$EMA(OR !.1

In +-8 'efen'ant Petronilo 'el Rosario !r. o=ner of t=ent6)fi*e ta9i cabs or cars operate' ata9i business un'er the name of a*al $a9i. 2e emplo6e' amon5 others three mechanics an'

- chauffeurs or 'ri*ers the latter ha*in5 =ore' for perio's ran5in5 from / to , months. On

September +-8 =ithout 5i*in5 sai' mechanics an' chauffeurs 8 'a6s a'*ance notice Del

Rosario sol' his / units or cabs to "a Mallorca a transportation compan6 as a result of =hich

accor'in5 to the mechanics an' chauffeurs abo*e)mentione' the6 lost their Bobs because the "a

Mallorca faile' to continue them in their emplo6ment. $he6 brou5ht this action a5ainst Del

Rosario to reco*er compensation for o*ertime =or ren'ere' be6on' ei5ht hours an' on

Sun'a6s an' le5al holi'a6s an' one month salar6 ;mesa'a< pro*i'e' for in article 8/ of the

Co'e of Commerce because the failure of their former emplo6er to 5i*e them one month notice.

Subse>uentl6 the three mechanics uncon'itionall6 =ith're= their claims. So onl6 the - 'ri*ers

remaine' as plaintiffs. $he 'efen'ant file' a motion for 'ismissal of the complaint on the 5roun'

that it state' no cause of action an' the trial court for the time bein5 'enie' the motion sa6in5

that it =ill be consi'ere' =hen the case =as hear' on the merits. After trial the complaint =as

'ismisse'. Plaintiffs appeale' from the or'er of 'ismissal to the Court of Appeals =hich $ribunal

after fin'in5 onl6 >uestions of la= are in*ol*e' certifie' the case to us.

$he parties are a5ree' that the plaintiffs as chauffeurs recei*e' no fi9e' compensation base'

on the hours or the perio' of time that the6 =ore'. Rather the6 =ere pai' on the commission

basis that is to sa6 each 'ri*er recei*e' /8 per cent of the 5ross returns or earnin5s from the

operation of his ta9i cab. Plaintiffs claim that as a rule each 'ri*e operate' a ta9i +/ hours a 'a6

=ith 5ross earnin5s ran5in5 from P/8 to P/ recei*in5 therefrom the correspon'in5 /8 per cent

share ran5in5 from P to P an' that in some cases especiall6 'urin5 Satur'a6s Sun'a6s

an' holi'a6s =hen a 'ri*er =ore' / hours a 'a6 he 5rosse' from P8 to P8 thereb6

recei*in5 a share of from P0 to P+8 for the perio' of t=ent6)four hours.

$he reason 5i*en b6 the trial court in 'ismissin5 the complaint is that the 'efen'ant bein5

en5a5e' in the ta9i or transportation business =hich is a public utilit6 came un'er the e9ception

pro*i'e' b6 the Ei5ht)2our "abor "a= ;Common=ealth Act No.


14/30

SEC$ION +. $he le5al =orin5 'a6 for an6 person emplo6e' b6 another shall not be more than

ei5ht hours 'ail6. hen the =or is not continuous the time 'urin5 =hich the laborer is not

=orin5 an' can lea*e his =orin5 place an' can rest completel6 shall not be counte'.

SEC. /. $his Act shall appl6 to all persons emplo6e' in an6 in'ustr6 or occupation =hether

public or pri*ate =ith the e9ception of farm laborers laborers =ho prefer to be pai' on piece

=or basis 'omestic ser*ants an' persons in the personal ser*ice of another an' members of

the famil6 of the emplo6er =orin5 for him.

SEC. . or ma6 be performe' be6on' ei5ht hours a 'a6 in case of actual or impen'in5

emer5encies cause' b6 serious acci'ents fire floo' t6phoon earth>uaes epi'emic or other

'isaster or calamit6 in or'er to pre*ent loss of life an' propert6 or imminent 'an5er to publicsafet6 or in case of ur5ent =or to be performe' on the machines e>uipment or installations in

or'er to a*oi' a serious loss =hich the emplo6er =oul' other=ise suffer or some other Bust

cause of a similar nature but in all cases the laborers an' the emplo6ees shall be entitle' to

recei*e compensation for the o*ertime =or performe' at the same rate as their re5ular =a5es

or salar6 plus at least t=ent6)fi*e per centum a''itional.

In case of national emer5enc6 the Go*ernment is empo=ere' to establish rules an' re5ulations

for the operation of the plants an' factories an' to 'etermine the =a5es to be pai' the laborers.

SEC. . No person firm or corporation business establishment or place or center of =or shall

compel an emplo6ee or laborer to =or 'urin5 Sun'a6s an' le5al holi'a6s unless he is pai' an

a''itional sum of at least t=ent6)fi*e per centum of his re5ular remuneration1 Pro*i'e' ho=e*er

$hat this prohibition shall not appl6 to public utilities performin5 some public ser*ice such as

suppl6in5 5as electricit6 po=er =ater or pro*i'in5 means of transportation or communication.

&n'er section as a public utilit6 the 'efen'ant coul' ha*e his chauffeurs =or on Sun'a6s

an' le5al holi'a6s =ithout pa6in5 them an a''itional sum of at least / per cent of their re5ularremuneration1 but that =ith reference onl6 to =or performe' on Sun'a6s an' holi'a6s. If the

=or 'one on such 'a6s e9cee's 0 hours a 'a6 then the Ei5ht)2our "abor "a= =oul' operate

pro*i'e' of course that plaintiffs came un'er section / of the sai' la=. So that the >uestion to

be 'eci'e' here is =hether or not plaintiffs are entitle' to e9tra compensation for =or

performe' in e9cess of 0 hours a 'a6 Sun'a6s an' holi'a6s inclu'e'.


15/30

It =ill be notice' that the last part of section of Common=ealth Act pro*i'es for e9tra

compensation for o*er)time =or at the same rate as their re5ular =a5es or salar6 plus at least

t=ent6)fi*e per centum a''itional an' that section / of the same act e9clu'es application

thereof laborers =ho preferre' to be on piece =or basis. $his connotes that a laborer or

emplo6ee =ith no fi9e' salar6 =a5es or remuneration but recei*in5 as compensation from his

emplo6er uncertain an' *ariable amount 'epen'in5 upon the =or 'one or the result of sai'=or ;piece =or< irrespecti*e of the amount of time emplo6e' is not co*ere' b6 the Ei5ht)2our

"abor "a= an' is not entitle' to e9tra compensation shoul' he =or in e9cess of 0 hours a 'a6.

An' this seems to be the con'ition of emplo6ment of the plaintiffs. A 'ri*er in the ta9i business

of the 'efen'ant lie the plaintiffs in one 'a6 coul' operate his ta9i cab ei5ht hours or less

than ei5ht hours or in e9cess of 0 hours or e*en / hours on Satur'a6s Sun'a6s an'

holi'a6s =ith no limit or restriction other than his 'esire inclination an' state of health an'

ph6sical en'urance. 2e coul' 'ri*e continuousl6 or intermittentl6 s6stematicall6 or haphaHar'l6

fast or slo= etc. 'epen'in5 upon his e9clusi*e =ish or inclination. One 'a6 =hen he feels

stron5 acti*e an' enthusiastic he =ors lon5 continuousl6 =ith 'ili5ence an' in'ustr6 an'

maes consi'erable 5ross returns an' recei*es as much as his /8 per cent commission.

Another 'a6 =hen he feels 'espon'ent run 'o=n =ea or laH6 an' =ants to rest bet=een trips

an' =ors for less number of hours his 5ross returns are less an' so is his commission. In

other =or's his compensation for the 'a6 'epen's upon the result of his =or =hich in turn

'epen's on the amount of in'ustr6 intelli5ence an' e9perience applie' to it rather than the

perio' of time emplo6e'. In short he has no fi9e' salar6 or =a5es. In this =e a5ree =ith the

learne' trial court presi'e' b6 !u'5e elicisimo Ocampo =hich maes the follo=in5 fin'in5s an'

obser*ations of this point.

. . . As alrea'6 state' their earnin5s =ere in the form of commission base' on the 5ross

receipts of the 'a6. $heir participation in most cases 'epen'e' upon their o=n in'ustr6. So

much so that the more hours the6 sta6e' on the roa' the 5reater the 5ross returns an' the

hi5her their commissions. $he6 ha*e no fi9e' hours of labor. $he6 can retire at pleasure the6

not bein5 pai' a fi9e' salar6 on the hourl6 'ail6 =eel6 or monthl6 basis.

It results that the =orin5 hours of the plaintiffs as ta9i 'ri*ers =ere entirel6 characteriHe' b6 its

irre5ularit6 as 'istin5uishe' from the specific re5ular remuneration pre'icate' on specific an'

re5ular hours of =or of factories an' commercial emplo6ees.

In the case of the plaintiffs it is the result of their labor not the labor itself =hich 'etermines

their commissions. $he6 =ore' un'er no compulsion of turnin5 a fi9e' income for each 5i*en

'a6. . . ..


16/30

In an opinion 'ate' !une + +-- ;Opinion No. ++< mo'ifie' b6 Opinion No. // series +-8

'ate' !une ++ +-8 the Secretar6 of !ustice hel' that chauffeurs of the Manila (ello= $a9icab

Co. =ho obser*e' in a loose =a6 certain =orin5 hours 'ail6 an' the time the6 report for

=or as =ell as the time the6 lea*e =or =as left to their 'iscretion. recei*in5 no fi9e' salar6

but onl6 /8 per cent of their 5ross earnin5s ma6 be consi'ere' as piece =orers an' therefore

not co*ere' b6 the pro*isions of the Ei5ht)2our "abor "a=.

$he a5e A'ministration Ser*ice of the Department of "abor in its Interpretati*e 3ulletin No. /

'ate' Ma6 /0 +- un'er O*ertime Compensation in section thereof entitle' Co*era5e

sa6s1

$he pro*isions of this bulletin on o*ertime compensation shall appl6 to all persons emplo6e' in

an6 in'ustr6 or occupation =hether public or pri*ate =ith the e9ception of farm laborers non)

a5ricultural laborers or emplo6ees =ho are pai' on piece =or contract paiao tas orcommission basis 'omestic ser*ants an' persons in the personal ser*ice of another an'

members of the famil6 of the emplo6er =orin5 for him.

rom all this to us it is clear that the claim of the plaintiffs)appellants for o*ertime compensation

un'er the Ei5ht)2our "abor "a= has no *ali' support.

As to the month pa6 ;mesa'a< un'er article 8/ of the Co'e of Commerce article //,8 of the

ne= Ci*il Co'e ;Republic Act 07< appears to ha*e repeale' sai' Article 8/ =hen it repeale'

the pro*isions of the Co'e of Commerce 5o*ernin5 A5enc6. $his repeal too place on Au5ust

8 +-8 =hen the ne= Ci*il Co'e =ent into effect that is one 6ear after its publication in the

Official GaHette. $he alle5e' termination of ser*ices of the plaintiffs b6 the 'efen'ant too place

accor'in5 to the complaint on September +-8 that is to sa6 after the repeal of Article 8/

=hich the6 in*oe. Moreo*er sai' Article 8/ of the Co'e of Commerce assumin5 that it =ere

still in force speas of salar6 correspon'in5 to sai' month. commonl6 no=n as mesa'a. If

the plaintiffs herein ha' no fi9e' salar6 either b6 the 'a6 =ee or month then computation of

the months salar6 pa6able =oul' be impossible. Article 8/ refers to emplo6ees recei*in5 a

fi9e' salar6. Dr. Arturo M. $olentino in his boo entitle' Commentaries an' !urispru'ence on

the Commercial "a=s of the Philippines Vol. + th e'ition p. +78 sa6s that article 8/ is notapplicable to emplo6ees =ithout fi9e' salar6. e >uote J

Emplo6ees not entitle' to in'emnit6. J $his article refers onl6 to those =ho are en5a5e' un'er

salar6 basis an' not to those =ho onl6 recei*e compensation e>ui*alent to =hate*er ser*ice


17/30

the6 ma6 ren'er. ;+ Mala5arri5a + citin5 'ecision of Ar5entina Court of Appeals on

Commercial Matters.uitable for both parties to rel6 on the summar6 of monthl6 income pro*i'e' b6 respon'ent

thus =e a''e' complainantFs monthl6 income from !une /88 until !une /887 or the last t=el*e

months an' =e arri*e' at P+0--+.8< an' =e 'i*i'e' it b6 t=el*e ;+/< to arri*e at

complainantFs a*era5e monthl6 earnin5 of P+,--./0. $hereafter the a*era5e monthl6 of

P+,--./0 is 'i*i'e' b6 t=ent6)si9 ;/7< 'a6s the factor commonl6 use' in 'eterminin5 the

re5ular =orin5 'a6s in a month to arri*e at his a*era5e 'ail6 income of P78,.77. inall6

P78,.77 ;a*era5e 'ail6 income< 9 //. 'a6s Q P+7,/. 9 + ;len5th of ser*ice< Q

P+-++/.-8 ;COMP"E$E RE$IREMEN$ PA(


21/30

PetitionerFs motion for reconsi'eration =as 'enie' hence the present petition for re*ie= on

certiorari.

$he petition is meritorious.

Republic Act No. ,7+ =hich =as enacte' on December - +--/ amen'e' Article /0, of the

"abor Co'e b6 pro*i'in5 for retirement pa6 to >ualifie' pri*ate sector emplo6ees in the absence

of an6 retirement plan in the establishment. $he pertinent pro*ision of sai' la= rea's1

Section +. Article /0, of Presi'ential Decree No. / as amen'e' other=ise no=n as the

"abor Co'e of the Philippines is hereb6 amen'e' to rea' as follo=s1

9 9 9 9

In the absence of a retirement plan or a5reement pro*i'in5 for retirement benefits of emplo6ees

in the establishment an emplo6ee upon reachin5 the a5e of si9t6 ;78< 6ears or more but not

be6on' si9t6)fi*e ;7< 6ears =hich is hereb6 'eclare' the compulsor6 retirement a5e =ho has

ser*e' at least fi*e ;< 6ears in the sai' establishment ma6 retire an' shall be entitle' to

retirement pa6 e>ui*alent to at least one)half ;+K/< month salar6 for e*er6 6ear of ser*ice a

fraction of at least si9 ;7< months bein5 consi'ere' as one =hole 6ear.

&nless the parties pro*i'e for broa'er inclusions the term one)half ;+K/< month salar6 shall

mean fifteen ;+< 'a6s plus one)t=elfth ;+K+/< of the +th month pa6 an' the cash e>ui*alent of

not more than fi*e ;< 'a6s of ser*ice incenti*e lea*es.

Retail ser*ice an' a5ricultural establishments or operations emplo6in5 not more than ;+8

Cases Relating to Taxi Drivers

Documents

Transcript of Cases Relating to Taxi Drivers