Special types of

Employment
 “
In a number of cases decided by this Court, we ruled that the
relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and
jeepney drivers on the other under the boundary system is that of
employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. We explained that 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.
2
 “
In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the
former exercise supervision and control over the latter. The
management of the business is in the owner's hands. The
owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience must
see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the
franchising authority and the rules promulgated as regards
its operation.

3
 “
Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get
only that in excess of the so-called "boundary" they pay to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship
between them from that of employer and employee. We have
applied by analogy the above stated doctrine to the
relationships between bus owner/operator and bus conductor

4
 “
auto-calesa owner/operator and driver,1 and recently between
taxi owners/operators and taxi drivers. Hence, petitioners
are undoubtedly employees of private respondent because
as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
their employer

5
What is a boundary system
A boundary system contract was
entered into, wherein the driver would
remit to the owner __________per day
as boundary and keep the remaining
earnings for himself. The agreement
included detailed instructions on the
execution of the driver’s driving such as
the route, working attire, usage and
maintenance of the vehicle, and
customer service guidelines.
6
"The only features that would make the
relationship of lessor and lessee between the
respondent, owner of the jeeps, and the
drivers, members of the petitioner union, are
the fact that he does not pay them any fixed
wage but their compensation is the excess of
the total amount of fares earned or collected
by them over and above the amount of P7.50
which they agreed to pay to the respondent,
and the fact that the gasoline burned by the
jeeps is for the account of the drivers.

7
these two features are not, however,
sufficient to withdraw the relationship,
between them from that of employer-
employee, because the estimated earnings
for fares must be over and above the
amount they agreed to pay to the
respondent for a ten-hour shift or ten-hour a
day operation of the jeeps. Not having any
interest in the business because they did not
invest anything in the acquisition of the
jeeps and did not participate in the
management thereof,

8
their service as drivers of the jeeps
being their only contribution to the
business, the relationship of lessor
and lessee cannot be sustained."
(G.R. No. L-21212 CITIZENS'
LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS vs.
ABBAS, September 23, 1966)