GR 111474; (August, 1994) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were taxi drivers for petitioners. They were required to pay a daily “boundary” fee, a P20.00 car wash payment, and a P15.00 cash deposit to cover any potential deficiency in their daily boundary remittance. Both drivers eventually stopped working for petitioners under disputed circumstances. Maldigan left and was later found working for another taxi company, while Sabsalon, after an incident involving a holdup, was rehired but later failed to remit his boundary and abandoned the taxi. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and illegal deductions.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding no illegal dismissal due to the drivers’ own actions and an unreasonable delay in filing the case. The NLRC affirmed the finding of no illegal dismissal. However, it modified the decision by ordering petitioners to refund the drivers’ accumulated P15.00 daily deposits and P20.00 car wash payments, plus attorney’s fees, ruling these were illegal deductions.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the refund of the daily cash deposits and car wash payments, and in awarding attorney’s fees.
RULING
Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in part. The Supreme Court modified the NLRC decision. Regarding the P15.00 daily deposits, the Court held these were illegal. Article 114 of the Labor Code prohibits employers from requiring deposits to answer for losses or damages to employer-supplied equipment, with limited exceptions. The purpose of these deposits—to cover boundary deficiencies—was not among the permitted exceptions under the law. Therefore, the refund of these deposits to Maldigan was proper, with legal interest. However, for Sabsalon, the Court noted the NLRC’s factual finding that he had abandoned the taxi with an unpaid boundary and fuel debt, implying any deposit would have been applied to that legitimate shortage, leaving no balance for refund.
Concerning the P20.00 car wash payments, the Court found no illegality. This was a recognized practice in the taxi industry for maintenance, and drivers had the option to wash the vehicles themselves to avoid the payment. It did not constitute a wage deduction under the law.
Finally, the award of attorney’s fees was deleted. The private respondents’ representative, Guillermo H. Pulia, was a non-lawyer who did not fall under the exceptions in Article 222 of the Labor Code allowing non-lawyer representation before the NLRC. Consequently, no attorney-client relationship existed to justify such an award.