CITIZENS' LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS AND/OR BALBINO EPIS, NICOLAS ROJO, ET AL. vs. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao and TEOFILO GERONIMO and EMERITA MENDEZ

G.R. No. L-21212             September 23, 1966

Facts:

On March 11, 1963 the respondents filed a complaint to restrain the Citizens' League of Freeworkers, a legitimate labor organization (referred to as union) from interfering in with  the respondents’ auto-calesas business in Davao and to recover damages from  committing certain acts complained of in connection therewith. The union members who were drivers of the said business, alleges that the defendants named therein used to lease the auto-calesas of the spouses on a daily rental basis and that the same does not recognize the union as their employees rather the petitioners were treated as lessees and refuses to bargain with them. The union declared a strike on February 20, 1963, to which paralyzed plaintiffs' business operations through threats, intimidation and violence. The writ was granted.

On March 18, 1963, petitioners filed a motion to declare the writ of preliminary injunction void on the ground that the same had expired by virtue of Section 9 (d) of Republic Act 875. In his order of March 21, 1963, however, the respondent judge denied said motion on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between respondents-spouses and the individual petitioners herein and that, consequently, the Rules of Court and not Republic Act No. 875 applied to the matter of injunction. Thereupon the petition under consideration was filed.

Issue:

Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship existing from a daily rental basis company?

Held:

In the case of Isabelo Doce vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. (G.R. No. L-9417, December 22, 1958), upon a similar if not an altogether identical set of facts, We held:

"The only features that would make the relationship of lessor and lessee between the respondent, owner of the jeeps, and the drivers, members of the petitioner union, 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, 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."

          Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 3966 of the Court of First Instance of Davao, with costs.