ISABEL V. SAGUINSIN, vs. DIONISIO LINDAYAG, ET AL.

,
Facts: On November 10, 1959 Maria V. Lindayag died intestate in Olongapo,
Zambales. On May 27, 1960 her sister, Isabel V. Saguinsin, filed with the CFI a
verified petition for the issuance of letters of administration of Maria. Isabel
alleged that Maria left real and personal properties in the provinces of
Zambales and Bulacan worth approximately P100,000 and that her surviving
heirs were: (1) Dionisio Lindayag, husband (2) Isabel V. Saguinsin sister (3)
Aurora V. Sacdalan, sister, and (4) Ines V. Calayag, sister and that, as far as
petitioner knew, the decedent left no debts at the time of her death.
Dionisio(husband of Maria) in his behalf and in representation of the minors
Jesus, Concepcion, and Catherine, all surnamed Lindayag filed a motion to
dismiss alleging that Isabel lack of interest in the estate, she being neither
the heir nor the creditor. He alleged that Maria was survived by him and
legally adopted minor children named Jesus, Concepcion, and Catherine, all
surnamed Lindayag, the descendent having left no legitimate, natural or
illegitimate child. A certified true copy of the decision of the Justice of the
Peace of Olongapo, Zambales, dated July 6, 1953 decreeing the adoption of
said minors by the descendent and her husband was attached to the motion.
Issue: Whether or not Isabel is an interested person
Held: No, she is not an heir of her deceased sister and, therefore, has no
material and direct interest in her estate.
Where it is undisputed that the decedent left a husband and three legally
adopted children, a petition for issuance of letters of administration in favor
of the sister of said decedent was properly dismissed for lack of interest in
the estate, she being neither an heir nor a creditor thereof.
An interest party has been defined in this connection as one who would be
benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate,
such as a creditor. And it is well settled in this jurisdiction that in civil actions as well
as special proceedings, the interest required in order that a person may be a party
thereto must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent.

NELLY
ACTA
MARTINEZ,
vs.
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, DOMINADOR CORRO, PASTOR CORRO, CELESTINO
CORRO, LUIS CORRO, EREBERTO CORRO, JAIME CRUZ, WENCESLAO
DELVO, GREGORIO DELVO, HERMEJIAS COLIBAO, JOSE OGANA and
ALONSO ALBAO
Facts: The private respondents alleged that they have been regular drivers of
Raul Martinez since 20 October 1989 earning no less than P400.00 per day
driving twenty-four (24) hours every other day. For the duration of
employment, not once did they receive a 13th month pay. After the death of
Raul Martinez, petitioner took over the management and operation of the
business. On orabout 22 June 1992 she informed them that because of
difficulty in maintaining the business, she was selling the units together with
the corresponding franchises. However, petitioner did not proceed with her
plan; instead, she assigned the units to other drivers.
Issue: Whether there is employer-employee relationship in boundary
system

HELD: The Court ruled that the relationship between jeepney

owners/operators on one hand and jeepney drivers on the other under the
boundary system is that of ER-EE and not of lessor-lessee. Therein 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. In the case
of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise
supervision and control over the latter. 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. The doctrine is
applicable by analogy to the present case. Thus, private respondents were
employees of Raul Martinez because they had been engaged to perform
activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer.
The rule is settled that unless expressly assumed, labor contracts are not
enforceable against the transferee of an enterprise. In the present case,
petitioner does not only disavow that she continued the operation of the
business of her son but also disputes the existence of labor contracts
between her son and private respondents. The reason for the rule is that
labor contracts are in personam, and that claims for backwages earned from
the former employer cannot be filed against the new owners of an enterprise.
Nor is the new operator of a business liable for claims for retirement pay of
employees. cTADCH