FACTS:
Sps. Magboo are the parents of Cesar Magboo, a child of 8 years old, who was killed in a motor vehicle accident, involving a passenger jeepney owned by the defendant, and driven that time by Conrado Roque.
Conrado was prosecuted for homicide thru reckless imprudence and was sentenced to six months imprisonment.
Appellant assails the decision, and contends that the relationship is essentially that of lessor and lessee.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between a jeepney-owner and a driver under a “boundary system” arrangement.
RULING:
In National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, it was held that the features which characterize the “boundary system” — namely, the fact that the driver does not receive a fixed wage but gets only the excess of the receipt of fares collected by him over the amount he pays to the jeep-owner and that the gasoline consumed by the jeep is for the account of the driver — are not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee.
The same responsibility was held to attach in a case where the injured party was not a passenger but a third person, who sued on the theory of culpa aquiliana. There is no reason why a different rule should be applied in a subsidiary liability case under Article 103 of the RPC.
As in the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the driver. Indeed to exempt from liability the owner of a public vehicle who operates it under the “boundary system” on the ground that he is a mere lessor would be not only to abet flagrant violations of the Public Service law but also to place the riding public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers.
Judgment is AFFIRMED.