Jeepney drivers who fail to pay ‘boundary’ can be suspended — SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the power of jeepney owners/operators to suspend their drivers who repeatedly fail to pay their “boundary.”

In a decision by Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the SC said 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.”

The SC said “the only limitation on the exercise of management prerogative is that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.”

Justices Antonio Carpio, Diosdado Peralta, Roberto Abad and Jose Catral Mendoza concurred with the decision.

The decision settled the dispute between three drivers — Primo Caong Jr., Alexander Tresquio and Loriano Daluyon — and their jeepney operator, Avelino Regualos, over what the former claimed was their suspension in 2001.

Whenever there was a deficit in the remittance, they were not allowed to drive their assigned jeepneys the day following their failure to turn over in full the amount of their “boundary.” The total amount of the deficiencies by the three drivers ballooned and reached P30,000, prompting Regualos to bar them from driving the jeepneys.

Regualos explained to all drivers that Caong, Tresquio and Daluyon were not dismissed and that they would be allowed to drive the jeepneys again once they have settled their boundary arrears.

The three drivers refused to settle their boundary deficiencies and instead filed a case for illegal dismissal before the Department of Labor and Employment.

The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint. He reiterated the employer-employee relationship between the drivers and the jeepney operator and ruled that “it is proper to impose disciplinary sanction on drivers who cannot pay their boundary payments.”

He emphasized the operator acquired the jeepneys on loan or installment basis “and relied on the boundary payments to comply with his monthly amortizations.”

The National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals affirmed the labor arbiter’s ruling.

The drivers elevated the issue before the SC.

The SC ruled “there was no intent on the part of respondent (Regualos) to sever the employer-employee relationship between him and the petitioners” (drivers).

“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, the suspension dragged on for years because of petitioners’ stubborn refusal to pay. It would have been different if 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,” the SC said. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune