Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANGEL JARDIN v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 187698 2010-08-09	RODOLFO J. SERRANO v. SEVERINO SANTOS TRANSIT CARPIO MORALES, J.
In practice, taxi drivers do not receive fixed wages. They retain only those sums in excess of the "boundary" or fee they pay to the owners or operators of the vehicles.[7] Conductors, on the other hand, are paid a certain percentage of the bus' earnings for the day.
	GR NO. 165881 2006-04-19	OSCAR VILLAMARIA v. VS.CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
As early as 1956, the Court ruled in National Labor Union v. Dinglasan[40] that the jeepney owner/operator-driver relationship under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not lessor-lessee. This doctrine was affirmed, under similar factual settings, in Magboo v. Bernardo[41] and Lantaco, Sr. v. Llamas,[42] and was analogously applied to govern the relationships between auto-calesa owner/operator and driver,[43] bus owner/operator and conductor,[44] and taxi owner/operator and driver.[45]
	GR No. 155214 2004-02-13	R & E TRANSPORT v. AVELINA P. LATAG PANGANIBAN, J.
It is accepted that taxi drivers do not receive fixed wages, but retain only those sums in excess of the "boundary" or fee they pay to the owners or operators of their vehicles.[34] Thus, the basis for computing their benefits should be the average daily income. In this case, the CA found that Pedro was earning an average of five hundred pesos (P500) per day. We thus compute his retirement pay as follows: P500 x 15 days x 14 years of service equals P105,000. Compared with this amount, the P38,850 he received, which represented just over one third of what was legally due him, was unconscionable.