Five J Taxi v. NLRC, 235 Scra 556

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 111474. August 22, 1994.]
FIVE J TAXI and/or JUAN S. ARMAMENTO , petitioners, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DOMINGO
MALDIGAN and GILBERTO SABSALON, respondents.
RESOLUTION
REGALADO, J : p
Petitioners Five J Taxi and/or Juan S. Armamento filed this special civil
action for certiorari to annul the decision 1 of respondent National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) ordering petitioners to pay private
respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon their accumulated
deposits and car wash payments, plus interest thereon at the legal rate from
the date of promulgation of judgment to the date of actual payment, and
10% of the total amount as and for attorney's fees. LexLib
We have given due course to this petition for, while to the cynical the de
minimis amounts involved should not impose upon the valuable time of this
Court, we find therein a need to clarify some issues the resolution of which are
important to small wage earners such as taxicab drivers. As we have heretofore
repeatedly demonstrated, this Court does not exist only for the rich or the
powerful, with their reputed monumental cases of national impact. It is also the
Court of the poor or the underprivileged, with the actual quotidian problems
that beset their individual lives.
Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were hired

by the petitioners as taxi drivers 2 and, as such, they worked for 4 days weekly
on a 24-hour shifting schedule. Aside from the daily "boundary" of P700.00 for
air-conditioned taxi or P450.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi, they were also
required to pay P20.00 for car washing, and to further make a P15.00 deposit to
answer for any deficiency in their "boundary," for every actual working day.
In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an extra driver by the
petitioners, he already failed to report for work for unknown reasons. Later,
petitioners learned that he was working for "Mine of Gold" Taxi Company. With
respect to Sabsalon, while driving a taxicab of petitioners on September 6,
1983, he was held up by his armed passenger who took all his money and
thereafter stabbed him. He was hospitalized and after his discharge, he went to
this home province to recuperate.
In January, 1987, Sabsalon was re-admitted by petitioners as a taxi driver
under the same terms and conditions as when he was first employed, but his
working schedule was made on an "alternative basis," that is, he drove only
every other day. However, on several occasions, he failed to report for work
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
during his schedule. prcd
On September 22, 1991, Sabsalon failed to remit his "boundary" of

P700.00 for the previous day. Also, he abandoned his taxicab in Makati without
fuel refill worth P300.00. Despite repeated requests of petitioners for him to
report for work, he adamantly refused. Afterwards it was revealed that he was
driving a taxi for "Bulaklak Company."
Sometime in 1989, Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement
of his daily cash deposits for 2 years, but herein petitioners told him that not a
single centavo was left of his deposits as these were not even enough to cover
the amount spent for the repairs of the taxi he was driving. This was allegedly
the practice adopted by petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the
repair of their taxicab units. When Maldigan insisted on the refund of his
deposit, petitioners terminated his services. Sabsalon, on his part, claimed that
his termination from employment was effected when he refused to pay for the
washing of his taxi seat covers.
On November 27, 1991, private respondents filed a complaint with the
Manila Arbitration Office of the National Labor Relations Commission charging
petitioners with illegal dismissal and illegal deductions. That complaint was
dismissed, the labor arbiter holding that it took private respondents two years
to file the same and such unreasonable delay was not consistent with the
natural reaction of a person who claimed to be unjustly treated, hence the filing
of the case could be interpreted as a mere afterthought.
Respondent NLRC concurred in said findings, with the observation that
private respondents failed to controvert the evidence showing that Maldigan
was employed by "Mine of Gold" Taxi Company from February 10, 1987 to
December 10, 1990; that Sabsalon abandoned his taxicab on September 1,
1990; and that they voluntarily left their jobs for similar employment with other
taxi operators. It, accordingly, affirmed the ruling of the labor arbiter that
private respondents' services were not illegally terminated. It, however,
modified the decision of the labor arbiter by ordering petitioners to pay private
respondents the awards stated at the beginning of this resolution.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied by the NLRC,
this petition is now before us imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of
said public respondent. prcd
This Court has repeatedly declared that the factual findings of quasi-
judicial agencies like the NLRC, which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only
respect but, at times, finality if such findings are supported by substantial
evidence. 3 Where, however, such conclusions are not supported by the
evidence, they must be struck down for being whimsical and capricious and,
therefore, arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. 4
Respondent NLRC held that the P15.00 daily deposits made by
respondents to defray any shortage in their "boundary" is covered by the
general prohibition in Article 114 of the Labor Code against requiring
employees to make deposits, and that there is no showing that the Secretary of
Labor has recognized the same as a "practice" in the taxi industry.
Consequently, the deposits made were illegal and the respondents must be
refunded therefor.
Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows:

"Article 114. Deposits for loss or damage. — No employer shall
require his worker to make deposits from which deductions shall be
made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools, materials, or
equipment supplied by the employer, except when the employer is
engaged in such trades, occupations or business where the practice of
making deposits is a recognized one, or is necessary or desirable as
determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate rules and
regulations."
It can be deduced therefrom that the said article provides the rule on
deposits for loss or damage to tools, materials or equipments supplied by the
employer. Clearly, the same does not apply to or permit deposits to defray any
deficiency which the taxi driver may incur in the remittance of his "boundary."
Also, when private respondents stopped working for petitioners, the alleged
purpose for which petitioners required such unauthorized deposits no longer
existed. In other case, any balance due to private respondents after proper
accounting must be returned to them with legal interest.
However, the unrebutted evidence with regard to the claim for Sabsalon is
as follows:
YEAR DEPOSITS SHORTAGES VALUES
1987 P1,403.00 P567.00 P1,000.00

1988 720.00 760.00 200.00
1989 686.00 130.00 1,500.00
1990 605.00 570.00 —
1991 165.00 2,300.00 —
———— ———— —————
P3,579.00 P4,327.00 P 2,700.00
The foregoing accounting shows that from 1987-1991, Sabsalon was able
to withdraw his deposits through vales or he incurred shortages, such that he is
even indebted to petitioners in the amount of P3,448.00. With respect to
Maldigan's deposits, nothing was mentioned questioning the same even in the
present petition. We accordingly agree with the recommendation of the
Solicitor General that since the evidence shows that he had not withdrawn the
same, he should be reimbursed the amount of his accumulated cash deposits. 5
On the matter of the car wash payments, the labor arbiter had this to say
in his decision: "Anent the issue of illegal deductions, there is no dispute that as
a matter of practice in the taxi industry, after a tour of duty, it is incumbent
upon the driver to restore the unit he has given to the same clean condition
when he took it out, and as claimed by the respondents (petitioners in the
present case), complainant(s) (private respondents herein) were made to
shoulder the expenses for washing, the amount doled out was paid directly to
the person who washed the unit, thus we find nothing illegal in this practice,
much more (sic) to consider the amount paid by the driver as illegal deduction
in the context of the law." 6 (Words in parentheses added.) Cdpr
Consequently, private respondents are not entitled to the refund of the

P20.00 car wash payments they made. It will be noted that there was nothing
to prevent private respondents from cleaning the taxi units themselves, if they
wanted to save their P20.00. Also, as the Solicitor General correctly noted, car
washing after a tour of duty is a practice in the taxi industry, and is, in fact,
dictated by fair play.
On the last issue of attorney's fees or services fees for private

respondents' authorized representative, Article 222 of the Labor Code, as
amended by Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1691, states that non-lawyers
may appear before the NLRC or any labor arbiter only (1) if they represent
themselves, or (2) if they represent their organization or the members thereof.
While it may be true that Guillermo H. Pulia was the authorized representative
of private respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not fall in either of the
foregoing categories. Hence, by clear mandate of the law, he is not entitled to
attorney's fees.
Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have
and recover from his client a reasonable compensation for his services 7
necessarily imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a
condition for the recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist
unless the client's representative is a lawyer. 8
WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of respondent National Labor
Relations Commission is hereby MODIFIED by deleting the awards for
reimbursement of car wash expenses and attorney's fees and directing said
public respondent to order and effect the computation and payment by
petitioners of the refund for private respondent Domingo Maldigan's deposits,
plus legal interest thereon from the date of finality of this resolution up to the
date of actual payment thereof. LLjur
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Penned by Presiding Commission Bartolome S. Carale, with Commissioner S. E.
Veloso concurring, in NLRC NCR CA No. 003285-92; Rollo , 35.
2. It appears that Maldigan was hired on November, 1987, although petitioners
claim that he was already working as an extra driver in October, 1986.
Sabsalon started working on June 24, 1979.
3. San Miguel Corporation vs. Javate, Jr., G.R. No. 54244, January 27, 1992, 205
SCRA 469; Planters Products, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. Nos. 78524 & 78739,
January 20, 1989, 169 SCRA 328.
4. San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 88268, June 2, 1992, 209 SCRA
494.
5. Rollo , 88.
6. Rollo , 24.
7. Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court.

8. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), et al vs. Binalbagan Isabela
Sugar Co., et al ., L-23959, November 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 302.

Five J Taxi v. NLRC, 235 Scra 556

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Five J Taxi v. NLRC, 235 Scra 556

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Five J Taxi v. NLRC, 235 Scra 556

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 111474. August 22, 1994.]

FIVE J TAXI and/or JUAN S. ARMAMENTO , petitioners, vs.

Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were hired

On September 22, 1991, Sabsalon failed to remit his "boundary" of

Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows:

1987 P1,403.00 P567.00 P1,000.00

Consequently, private respondents are not entitled to the refund of the

On the last issue of attorney's fees or services fees for private

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

7. Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like