Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAGUIO TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 187200 2010-05-05	GOLDEN ACE BUILDERS v. JOSE A. TALDE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact, however, to be adequately supported by evidence[16] substantial evidence to show that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy.[17]
	GR No. 146989 2007-02-07	MELENCIO GABRIEL v. NELSON BILON AZCUNA, J.
[T]he relationship between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee because in the lease of chattels the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercises supervision and control over the latter. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called "boundary" [that] they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee. Thus, private respondents were employees ... because they had been engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.[19] The same principle was reiterated in the case of Paguio Transport Corporation v. NLRC.[20]
	GR NO. 165727 2006-04-19	TOWER INDUSTRIAL SALES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Neither can this Court give credence to petitioners' argument that the reinstatement of private respondent is no longer possible because of the strained relations between the petitioners, on one hand, and the private respondent on the other. Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact, adequately supported by evidence on record.[25] Mere allegations of such by the petitioners, without evidence, are self-serving. It bears emphasis that the NLRC, based on the evidence presented before it, concluded that reinstatement is still possible in the present case, a finding which we have no reason to disturb.