Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

 

General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647, February 13, 2009

Subject: Labor Law 

FACTS

In the late 1990s, CCBPI experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian economic crisis, hence, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement Program. An inter-office memorandum was sent to all of CCBPI’s Plant Human Resources Managers/Personnel Officers, including those of the CCBPI General Santos Plant (CCBPI Gen San) mandating them to put on hold "all requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions in [the] Head Office and in the Plants." Because several employees availed of the early retirement program, vacancies were created in some departments, including the production department of CCBPI Gen San, where members of petitioner Union worked. This prompted petitioner to negotiate with the Labor Management Committee for filling up the vacancies with permanent employees. 

Faced with the "freeze hiring" directive, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation (JLBP), a company in the business of providing labor and manpower services, including janitorial services, messengers, and office workers to various private and government offices.

In 2002, petitioner filed with the NCMB, a Notice of Strike on the ground of alleged unfair labor practice committed by CCBPI Gen San for contracting-out services regularly performed by union members ("union busting"). After conciliation and mediation proceedings before the NCMB, the parties failed to come to an amicable settlement. Hence, CCBPI filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Secretary of Labor issued an Order enjoining the threatened strike and certifying the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.

In 2003, the NLRC ruled that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice for contracting out jobs to JLBP. The NLRC anchored its ruling on the validity of the "Going-to-the-Market" (GTM) system implemented by the company, which called for restructuring its selling and distribution system, leading to the closure of certain sales offices and the elimination of conventional sales routes. CA affirmed NLRC’s decision that CCBPI did not commit unfair labor practice. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not JLBP is an independent contractor, whether or not CCBPI’s contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor practice, and whether or not such action was a valid exercise of management prerogative, call for a re-examination of evidence, which is not within the ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, JLBP is an independent Contractor. No, CCBPI’s contracting out of jobs to JLBP does not amount to unfair labor practice. Yes, it is a valid exercise of management prerogative.

Under the law, it shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices: (c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.

In this case, SC held that unfair labor practice refers to "acts that violate the workers’ right to organize." The prohibited acts are related to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices. It is true that the NLRC erroneously concluded that the contracting- out of jobs in CCBPI Gen San was due to the GTM system, which actually affected CCBPI’s sales and marketing departments, and had nothing to do with petitioner’s complaint. However, this does not diminish the NLRC’s finding that JLBP was a legitimate, independent contractor and that CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP to meet business exigencies created by the freeze-hiring directive of the CCBPI Head Office. CCBPI did not engage in labor-only contracting and, therefore, was not guilty of unfair labor practice. SC held that the company’s action to contract-out the services and functions performed by Union members did not constitute unfair labor practice as this was not directed at the members’ right to self-organization. Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its charge of unfair labor practice. It was the Union that had the burden of adducing substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor practice, which burden it failed to discharge.

Case Digest: PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267

 

PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267, July 4, 2008

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

A Mitsubishi Lancer was hit and bumped by an 18-wheeler Tanker Truck o Lancer, owned by UCPB and insured by respondent, driven by Flaviano Isaac with Conrado Geronimo, the Asst. Manager of UCPB. While the truck was owned by petitioner and allegedly leased to and operated by SUGECO and driven by its employee, Renato Gonzaga.

The rear part of the Lancer exploded due to the impact. The driver and passenger suffered physical injuries. However, the Truck driver Gonzaga continued on his way to its destination and did not bother to bring his victims to the hospital Respondent paid insurance proceeds to the assured UCPB Demands were made by respondent to the registered owner of the truck, PCI, for payment of the amount of the insurance proceeds.

No payment was made Respondent filed the present case. Petitioner admits that it is the owner, but it could not be held liable for the collision, since the driver of the truck, Gonzaga, was not its employee, but that of SUGECO. It was SUGECO that was the actual operator of the truck, pursuant to a Contract of Lease.

After trial, RTC favored the respondent and held petitioner and driver are solidarily liable to respondent. On appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s decision with modifications.

Under the Public Service Act, if the property covered by a franchise is transferred or leased to another without obtaining the requisite approval, the transfer is not binding on the Public Service Commission and, in contemplation of law, the grantee continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the operation of the vehicle, such as damage or injury to third parties due to collisions.

Petitioner contends that PSA applies only to common carriers, or those which have franchises to operate as public utilities. Its truck is a private commercial vehicle for business use, which is not offered for service to the general public. With the enactment of RA 8556, financing companies have been absolved from liability for the consequences of quasi-delictual acts or omissions involving financially leased property.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner is liable to the respondent even though the vehicle is on lease to another when the incident happened.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is still liable to the respondent.

In contemplation of law, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is the employer of its driver, with the actual operator and employer, such as a lessee, being considered as merely the owner's agent. Even if a sale has been executed before a tortious incident, the sale, if unregistered, has no effect as to the right of the public and third persons to recover from the registered owner.  The public has the right to conclusively presume that the registered owner is the real owner and may sue accordingly.

In this case, there is not even a sale of the vehicle involved, but a mere lease, which remained unregistered up to the time of the occurrence of the quasi-delict. Since a lease does not even transfer title or ownership, there is more reason to uphold the policy behind the law On financing companies. The new law, RA 8556, does not supersede or repeal the law on compulsory motor vehicle registration. Thus, the rule remains the same: a sale, lease, or financial lease, for that matter, that is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, still does not bind third persons who are aggrieved in tortious incidents, for the latter need only to rely on the public registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive evidence of ownership. A lease such as the one involved in the instant case is an encumbrance in contemplation of law, which needs to be registered in order for it to bind third parties.

The failure to register a lease, sale, transfer or encumbrance, should not benefit the parties responsible to the prejudice of innocent victims. The non-registration of the lease contract between petitioner and its lessee precludes the former from enjoying the benefits under RA 8556. The registered owner is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff, but he has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiff.

Case Digest: First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp. vs. CA, 209 SCRA 660, GR. No. 91378

 

First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp. vs. CA, 209 SCRA 660, GR. No. 91378, June 9, 1992

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Respondent Vitug got into a three-vehicle collision with another car and an ​Isuzu cargo truck registered in the name of Petitioner FMLFC​. Bystanders were able to save Vitug; however, Vitug’s two other passengers were burned to death. Vitug also lost some personal items and had to go to US twice for medical treatment. FMLFC denied any liability, alleging that even if they were the registered owners of the Isuzu cargo truck, they had already ​sold the truck to a certain Vicente Trinidad​.

RTC ruled in favor of Vitug and ordered FMLFC to pay Vitug damages. CA affirmed but also modified RTC’s decision by ordering the estate of Vicente Trinidad to indemnify FMLFC for any amount it pays to Vitug.

ISSUE

Whether or not FMLFC is liable for damages despite it not being the actual owner of the truck.​

RULING

Yes, FMLFC is liable for damages.

Under the law, regardless of who the ​actual owner of a motor vehicle might be, the registered owner is the operator of the same with respect to the public and third persons, and as such, directly and primarily responsible for the consequences of its operation. In contemplation of law, the owner/operator ​of record is the employer of the driver, the actual operator and employer being considered merely as his agent.

In this case, FMLFC is liable. First, the trial court’s factual finding that FMLFC is the REGISTERED owner of the truck cannot be disturbed by the SC. Second, the Court ruled that it is the ​registered owner or operator of record​, despite there being a different actual owner, who is the one liable for damages caused by a vehicle regardless of any alleged sale or lease made thereon.

Case Digest: Benedicto vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70876

 

Benedicto vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70876, July 19, 1990

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

In May 1980, Greenhills, a lumber manufacturing firm, was obligated to deliver 100,000 board feet of sawn lumber to Blue Star Mahogany, Inc. in Valenzuela, Bulacan. The company's resident manager, Dominador Cruz, contracted Virgilio Licuden, the driver of a cargo truck, to transport the lumber. Licuden was charged with two invoices, one for 5,374 board feet and the other for 2,316 board feet. However, the lumber had not arrived in Valenzuela, and Blue Star's manager informed Greenhills' president. Greenhills filed criminal and civil cases against Licuden and Benedicto for estafa and recovery of the lost lumber. Benedicto denied liability, claiming she was a stranger to the contract and that the truck had been sold to Benjamin Tee. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that since Benedicto was the registered owner of the truck, Licuden was her employee and that she should be responsible for the negligence of the driver and bear the loss of the lumber plus damages.

ISSUE

Whether or not Petitioner is liable for the value of the undelivered or lost sawn lumber.

RULING

Yes, there is no dispute that petitioner Benedicto has been holding herself out to the public as engaged in the business of hauling or transporting goods for hire or compensation. Petitioner Benedicto is, in brief, a common carrier.

The prevailing doctrine on common carriers makes the registered owner liable for consequences flowing from the operations of the carrier, even though the specific vehicle involved may already have been transferred to another person. This doctrine rests upon the principle that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume that the registered owner is the actual or lawful owner thereof It would be very difficult and often impossible as a practical matter, for members of the general public to enforce the rights of action that they may have for injuries inflicted by the vehicles being negligently operated if they should be required to prove who the actual owner is. The registered owner is not allowed to deny liability by proving the identity of the alleged transferee.

In this case, contrary to the petitioner's claim, private respondent is not required to go beyond the vehicle's certificate of registration to ascertain the owner of the carrier. In this regard, the letter presented by the petitioner allegedly written by Benjamin Tee admitting that Licuden was his driver, had no evidentiary value not only because Benjamin Tee was not presented in court to testify on this matter but also because of the aforementioned doctrine. To permit the ostensible or registered owner to prove who the actual owner is, would be to set at naught the purpose or public policy which infuses that doctrine.

Case Digest: Lim vs. CA, G.R. No. 125817

 

Lim vs. CA, G.R. No. 125817, January 16, 2002

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Sometime in 1982 private respondent Donato Gonzales purchased an Isuzu passenger jeepney from Gomercindo Vallarta, holder of a certificate of public convenience for the operation of public utility vehicle plying the Monumento- Bulacan route.

While private respondent Gonzales continued offering the jeepney for public transport services he did not have the registration of the vehicle transferred in his name nor did he source for himself a certificate of public convenience for its operation. Thus, Vallarta remained on record as its registered owner and operator.

On 22 July 1990, while the jeepney was running northbound along the North diversion road somewhere in Meycauayan, Bulacan, it collided with a ten-wheeler- truck owned by petitioner Abelardo Lim and driven by his co-petitioner Esmadito Gunnaban. Gunnaban owned responsibility for the accident, explaining that while he was traveling towards Manila the truck suddenly lost its brakes.

Petitioner Lim shouldered the costs for hospitalization of the wounded, compensated the heirs of the deceased passenger, and had the Ferroza restored to good condition.He also negotiated with private respondent and offered to have the passenger jeepney repaired at his shop. Private respondent however did not accept the offer so Lim offered him P20,000.00, the assessment of the damage as estimated by his chief mechanic.

Again, petitioner Lim’s proposition was rejected; instead, private respondent was unyielding. Under the circumstances, negotiations had to be abandoned; hence, the filing of the complaint for damages by private respondent against petitioners.

RTC upheld the private respondent’s claim. On appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s ruling.

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the decision of the trial court despite their opposition to the well-established doctrine that an operator of a vehicle continues to be its operator as long as he remains the operator of record. According to them, to recognize an operator under the kabit system as the real party in interest and to countenance his claim for damages is utterly subversive of public policy.

ISSUE

Whether or not the new owner have any legal personality to bring the action, or is he the real party in interest in the suit, despite the fact that he is not the registered owner under the certificate of public convenience.

RULING

Yes, the new owner have any legal personality to bring the action, or is he the real party in interest in the suit, despite the fact that he is not the registered owner under the certificate of public convenience.

The kabit system is an arrangement whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allows other persons who own motor vehicles to operate them under his license, sometimes for a fee or percentage of the earnings.

The kabit system is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and therefore void and inexistent under Art. 1409 of the Civil Code. One of the primary factors considered in the granting of a certificate of public convenience for the business of public transportation is the financial capacity of the holder of the license, so that liabilities arising from accidents may be duly compensated.

The kabit system renders illusory such purpose and, worse, may still be availed of by the grantee to escape civil liability caused by a negligent use of a vehicle owned by another and operated under his license. If a registered owner is allowed to escape liability by proving who the supposed owner of the vehicle is, it would be easy for him to transfer the subject vehicle to another who possesses no property with which to respond financially for the damage done.

Thus, for the safety of passengers and public who may have been wronged and deceived through the baneful kabit system, the registered owner of the vehicle is not allowed to prove that another person has become the owner so that he may be thereby relieved of responsibility.

In this case, it is at once apparent that the evil sought to be prevented in enjoining the kabit system does not exist. First, neither of the parties to the pernicious kabit system is being held liable for damages. Second, the case arose from the negligence of another vehicle in using the public road to whom no representation, or misrepresentation, was necessary. Thus it cannot be said that private respondent Gonzales and the registered owner of the jeepney were in estoppel for leading the public to believe that the jeepney belonged to the registered owner. Third, the riding public was not bothered nor inconvenienced at the very least by the illegal arrangement. On the contrary, it was private respondent himself who had been wronged and was seeking compensation for the damage done to him. Certainly, it would be the height of inequity to deny him his right. It is evident that private respondent has the right to proceed against petitioners for the damage caused on his passenger jeepney as well as on his business. Any effort then to frustrate his claim of damages by the ingenuity with which petitioners framed the issue should be discouraged, if not repelled.

Case Digest: Jardin vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119268

 

Jardin vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119268, February 23, 2000

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Petitioners worked as drivers for Philjama International Inc., fulfilling responsibilities within a 24-hour work schedule under a boundary system. Notably, the private respondent consistently deducted P30.00 from the daily earnings of the petitioners, citing it as a fee for washing taxi units. Suspecting the legality of this deduction, the petitioners, in an effort to protect their rights and interests, formed a labor union. However, tensions arose when, on August 6, 1991, the private respondent, suspecting union formation, prohibited the petitioners from driving.

In response to this restriction, petitioners filed a comprehensive complaint, encompassing allegations of unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and illegal deduction. Despite their efforts, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Subsequently, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) intervened, reversing the labor arbiter's decision and officially recognizing the petitioners as employees.

While the private respondent's initial motion for reconsideration was denied, a subsequent attempt proved successful. This turn of events prompted the petitioners to seek reconsideration, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the proceedings.

ISSUE/S

1. Whether NLRC has jurisdiction to entertain the second motion for reconsideration.

2. Whether the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a settled issue.

3. Whether existing jurisprudence supports the view that petitioners are employees.

RULING

1. Yes, the court held that NLRC's acceptance of the second motion for reconsideration was a violation of its own rules, constituting grave abuse of discretion. NLRC's rules explicitly allow only one motion for reconsideration from the same party. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure an expeditious resolution of labor cases. The court noted that the rationale for allowing only one motion for reconsideration is to promote the swift and cost-effective settlement of labor disputes.

2. Yes, the court disagreed with NLRC's ruling that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. It cited prevailing jurisprudence that establishes the relationship between taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers under the boundary system as that of employer-employee, not lessor-lessee. The court emphasized that control is a crucial factor in determining an employer-employee relationship, and the owners/operators did exercise supervision and control over the drivers.

3. Yes, the court reiterated that termination of employment must follow legal procedures and be based on just and authorized causes. Since the termination of petitioners was without valid cause and lacked compliance with notice and hearing requirements, it was deemed illegal. The court ordered private respondent to reinstate the petitioners to their positions and pay them full backwages, computed from the date of dismissal until their actual reinstatement.

Case Digest: Paguio Transport Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119500

 

Paguio Transport Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119500, August 28, 1998

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Complainant Melchor was hired by PTC as a taxi driver under the boundary system. He was advised to stop working and have a rest after a car accident involving the taxi unit he was driving. He was told by the PTC that his service was no longer needed. Then the complaint for illegal dismissal was raised. The petitioner concludes that he had no control over the number of hour’s private respondent had to work and the routes he had to take; therefore no employer-employee relationship exists.

ISSUE

Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists.

RULING

Yes, there is an employee-employer relationship between them.

Under the law, boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. The “boundary system” the drivers do not receive fixed wages; all the excess in the amount of boundary was considered his income but it is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee.

In this case, private respondents were employees because they had been engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer. The petition was dismissed, the private respondent was entitled for the claim of damages and illegal dismissal.