Scribd
Upload
78 views2 pages

69-Labor-Jardin vs. NLRC

The petitioners were drivers for Philjama International, Inc. (Goodman Taxi) who formed a labor union. Goodman Taxi refused to let the petitioners drive when they reported to work in an apparent attempt to prevent the union. The petitioners filed a complaint which was dismissed but later reinstated by the NLRC. However, the NLRC then ruled it did not have jurisdiction and the relationship was one of leasehold not employment. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled the NLRC abused its discretion by allowing a second motion for reconsideration and its decision went against prior Supreme Court rulings that such relationships were employer-employee. The Court also noted that requiring drivers to wash taxis after use was

Uploaded by

Joesil Dianne Sempron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views2 pages

69-Labor-Jardin vs. NLRC

The petitioners were drivers for Philjama International, Inc. (Goodman Taxi) who formed a labor union. Goodman Taxi refused to let the petitioners drive when they reported to work in an apparent attempt to prevent the union. The petitioners filed a complaint which was dismissed but later reinstated by the NLRC. However, the NLRC then ruled it did not have jurisdiction and the relationship was one of leasehold not employment. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled the NLRC abused its discretion by allowing a second motion for reconsideration and its decision went against prior Supreme Court rulings that such relationships were employer-employee. The Court also noted that requiring drivers to wash taxis after use was

Uploaded by

Joesil Dianne Sempron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

JARDIN VS.

NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioners were drivers of private respondent, Philjama International, Inc., a domestic corporation
engaged in the operation of "Goodman Taxi." Petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect their
rights and interests. Upon learning of their plan, Goodman Taxi refused to let petitioners drive their
taxicabs when they reported for work. Petitioners suspected that they were singled out because they
were leaders and active members of the proposed union. The incident caused them to Ale with the
labor arbiter a complaint against Goodman Taxi (private respondent herein). The labor arbiter dismissed
the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the labor
arbiter. The labor tribunal declared that petitioners are employees of private respondent, and, as such,
their dismissal must be for just cause and after due process. Private respondent Aled its Arst motion for
reconsideration, which was denied. However upon Aling a second motion for reconsideration, the NLRC
ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over the case as petitioners and private respondent had no employer-
employee relationship. It held that the relationship is leasehold, which is covered by the Civil Code
rather than the Labor Code. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the labor tribunal's latest decision,
which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the deduction for the washing of taxi units is illegal.

RULING:

NO.

The second motion for reconsideration filed by Goodman Taxi was indubitably a prohibited pleading,
which should not have been entertained at all. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in taking
cognizance and granting the second motion for reconsideration as it wrecks the orderly procedure in
seeking reliefs in labor cases. There was also another compelling reason why the decision of the NLRC
should be set aside, that is, the judgment was not in accordance with the applicable decisions of the
Supreme Court. In a number of cases decided by the Court, which may be applied to this case, the
Supreme Court 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. The instant petition was granted.
In Five J Taxi vs. NLRC, the court views that it is not illegal in the context of the law. We note that after a
tour of duty, it is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same clean
condition when he took it out. Car washing after a tour of duty is indeed a practice in the taxi industry
and is in fact dictated by fair play. Hence, the drivers are not entitled to reimbursement of washing
charges

You might also like