18.1 Caong Et Al V Regualos

 

G.R. No. 179428, January 26, 2011 PRIMO E. CAONG, JR., ALEXANDER ALEXANDER J. TRESQUIO, and LORIANO D. DALUYON, DALUYON, petitioners, vs. AVELINO REGUALOS,respondent.  FACTS:  P Caong, Tresquio and Daluyon were employed as jeepney drivers by Respondent Regualos under a boundary agreement. o Caong  –  since  since Sept 1998; permanent on 2000; assigned to new jeepney with P550 boundary in July 2001; suspended Oct 9-15, 2001 for failure to pay full amount of the boundary; readmitted and assigned to an older jeepney w/ P500 boundary; he was only able to remit P400 on Nov 9 2001 due to scarcity of drivers; he was barred from driving because of deficiency in boundary on Nov 11, 2001 o Tresquio  –  since  since Aug 1996; permanent in 1997; assigned t o new jeepney with P500 boundary in 1998; he was only able to remit P450 due to scarcity of passengers on Nov 6 2001; he was barred from driving due to deficiency on Nov 8, 2001 o Daluyon  –  since  since Mar 1998; assigned to a relatively new jeepney for a P500 boundary; he was only able to remit P470 due to scarcity of  passengers on Nov 7 2001; was barred from from driving his jeepney on on Nov 8, 2001

  P filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal a gainst Regualos who barred them from driving the jeepneys due to deficiencies in their



 boundary payments. payments. Regualos told them they were not illegally dismissed, and could could resume their use of vehicles after payment payment of arrears.

  LA, NLRC, CA: ruled that there was an employer-employee relationship between Regualos and the petitioners and that there was no



dismissal because they would be allowed to use the vehicles once they pay their arrears. A reasonable sanction was deem ed to be an appropriate penalty; EE relationship of parties was not severed but merely suspended because Regualos refused to allow petitioners to drive the jeepneys when they failed to pay their obligations.

  R Regualos alleged that the P were lessees of his vehicles and not his employees. Thus, the LA had no jx.   P filed petition with SC.





ISSUE: WON the Ps were illegally dismissed. --NO WON the policy of suspending drivers pending payment of arrears in their boundary obligations reasonable.  –  YES  YES  RULING:  NO.  LABOR LAW - Employer-employee relationships 

It is already settled the relationship between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers bou boundary ndary system that of employeremployee and not ofthat lessor-lessee. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but only under get thethe amount in excess of is the so-called "boundary" that they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to negate the relationship between them as employer and employee. The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA uniformly declared t hat petitioners were not di smissed from employment but merely suspended  pending payment of their arrears. arrears. Findings of fact of the CA, CA, particularly where they are in absolute agreement agreement with those of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, are accorded not only respect but even finality, and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as t hey are supported by substantial evidence. Suspension was NOT to sever the employer -employee relationship and it only dragged on because petitioners refused to pay the arrears Also, due process is simply the opportunity to be heard and, since this is NOT a case of termination of employment, the twin-notice rule is not necessary. >>  The meeting conducted by Regualos on November 4, 2001 served as sufficient notice to petitioners. We have no reason to deviate from such findings. Indeed, petitioners petitioners’’ suspension cannot be categorized as dismissal, considering that there was no intent on the part of respondent to sever the employer-employee relationship between him and petitioners. In fact, it was made clear that petitioners could put an end to the suspension if they only pay their recent arrears . As it was, t he suspension dragged on for years because of petiti oners stubborn refusal to pay. It would have been different i f petitioners complied with the condition and respondent still refused to readmit them to work. Then there would have been a clear act of dismissal. But such was not the case. Instead of paying,  petitioners even filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent. respondent. It is acknowledged that an employer has free rein and enjoys a wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline on his employees and to impose penalties, including dismissal, if warranted, upon erring employees. This is a management prerogative. Indeed, the manner in which management conducts its own affairs to achieve its purpose is within the management’s discretion. The only limitation on the exercise of management prerogative is that the policies, rules, ru les, and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and r easonable, and the corresponding penalties, when  prescribed, commensurate to the offense offense involved and to the degree degree of the infraction DISPOSITION  Petition is DENIED.