Villamaria, Jr. vs. CA

G.R. No. 165881. April 19, 2006.

P- Oscar Villamaria, Jr

R- CA, Jerry Bustamante

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.