Family Drivers are Not Governed by the Labor Code
Family drivers, no doubt, render service for the benefit of their employers who are individuals and probably including members of their family.
Prior to the enactment of R.A. 10361 or the “Domestic Workers Act” or “Batas Kasambahay”, the Labor Code considered them individuals performing domestic or household service. The former Art. 141 of the Labor Code defines “Domestic or household service” as service in the employer’s home which is usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and includes ministering to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the employer’s household, including services of family drivers.
However, all articles or provisions of Chapter III (Employment of Househelpers) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended and renumbered by Republic Act No. 10151 were expressly repealed by R.A. 10361. Thus, former Article 141 to Article 152 were expressly repealed. (page 90, The Labor Code of the Philippines by Atty. Elvin B. Villanueva)
The term househelper was not anymore used to refer to this worker under R.A. 10361. Rather, the term used is Domestic Worker or Kasambahay. (Ibid.)
The Kasambahay Law, on the other hand, made no mention of family drivers in the enumeration of those workers who are covered by the law.
Under Section 4 of R.A. 10361, “Domestic worker” or “Kasambahay” is defined as any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.
According to the Supreme Court in the case of Atienza vs. Saluta (G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019), Section 4 (d) of the Kasambahay Law pertaining to who are included in the enumeration of domestic or household help cannot be interpreted to include family drivers because the latter category of worker is clearly not included.
Section 2 of the IRR of the Batas Kasambahay clarified the status of family drivers as among those not covered by the definition of domestic or household help as contemplated in Section 4 (d) of the Kasambahay Law.
What happened to the inclusion of the family drivers in the definition of Domestic Service or the Household Service?
According to the Supreme Court in the Atienza case, due to the express repeal of the Labor Code provisions pertaining to househelpers, which includes family drivers, by the Kasambahay Law; and the non-applicability of the Kasambahay Law to family drivers, there is a need to revert back to the Civil Code provisions, particularly Articles 1689, 1697 and 1699, Section 1, Chapter 3, Title VIII, Book IV thereof.
Section 1 of said law pertains to Household Service. Article 1689 mentions about reasonable compensation to be given including lodging, food, and medical attendance. Article 1697 refers to the period for household service which is fixed. It mentions that it cannot be terminated before the expiration of the term, except for a just cause. If unjustly dismissed, he shall be paid the compensation already earned plus that for fifteen days by way of indemnity. If he leaves without justifiable reason, he shall forfeit any salary due him and unpaid, for not exceeding fifteen days.
Further, under Article 1699, upon the extinguishment of the service relation, he may demand a written statement on the nature and duration of the service and the efficiency and conduct.
The Court explains that the reason for reverting back to the Civil Code provisions on household service is because Section 44 of the Kasambahay Law expressly repealed Articles 141 to 152 of the Labor Code which deals with the rights of family drivers. Obviously, an expressly repealed statute is not anymore binding for it has no more force and effect.
Did the Labor Code repeal the Civil Code? The Labor Code was a later enactment than the Civil Code. Under Article 302 it provides that all labor laws not adopted as part of Labor Code either directly or by reference are hereby repealed. All provisions of existing laws, orders, decrees, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are likewise repealed.
The Supreme Court also explains that the Labor Code did not repeal the said Civil Code provisions since they are not inconsistent with the Labor Code. Besides, repeals by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject, the congruent application of which the courts must generally presume.
Finally, the Court held that since what were expressly repealed by the Kasambahay Law were only Articles 141 to 152, Chapter III of the Labor Code on Employment of Househelpers; and the Labor Code did not repeal the Civil Code provisions concerning household service which impliedly includes family drivers as they minister to the needs of a household, the said Civil Code provisions stand.
To rule otherwise would leave family drivers without even a modicum of protection. Certainly, that could not have been the intent of the lawmakers.
Comments (16)
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 14687 more Information on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: lvsbooks.com/family-drivers-are-not-governed-by-the-labor-code/ […]
Comments are closed.