Five J Taxi V Nlrc Digest

Five J Taxi and Juan Armamento v. NLRC, Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon G.R. No. 111474. August 22, 1994 Facts: 1. Maldigan and Sabsalon were hired by the Five J Taxi as taxi driver. Nov. 1987 and June 1979, respectively. a. They worked for 4 days weekly on a 24 hour shifting schedule. b. Aside from the daily “boundary” of P700.00 for airconditioned taxi or P450.00 for non-airconditioned 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. 2. Subsequently, in less than 4 months after he was hired, Maldigan failed to report to work for unknown reasons. 3. Sabsalon was held up by his armed passenger who took all his money and stabbed him. He was hospitalized and after his discharge, he went to his home province to recuperate. 4. While Sabsalon was re-admitted to work by Five J Taxi, he was only required to work every other day. However, on several instances, he also failed to report for work during his schedule. Despite repeated requests for him to report to work, he refused. 5. In 1989, Maldigan requested Five J Taxi for the reimbursement of his daily cash deposits for 2 years, but they told him that nothing 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 Five J Taxi 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. 6. 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.

7. Maldigan and Sabsalon then filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and illegal deductions. Complaint was dismissed. a. The filing of the case was a mere after-thought since it took them two years to file the same. Such delay is unreasonable. b. It was also discovered that Maldigan was working for another taxi company called “Mine of Gold” and that Sabsalon was driving a taxi for “Bulaklak Company.” Both of them failed to controvert the evidence showing this and that they voluntarily left their jobs. c. However, ordered Five J Taxi and Armamento to pay Maldigan and Sabsalon their accumulated deposits and car wash payments. Issue: WON Maldigan and Sabsalon’s deposits and car wash payments should be refunded. YES. Held/Ratio: Deposits should be refunded to them. Car wash payments should not be refunded. 1. 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 LC 114 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. Therefore, the deposits made were illegal and the respondents must be refunded. 2. It can be deduced that the LC114 provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools, materials or equipment supplied by the employer. Clearly the same does not apply to or permit deposits not to defray any deficiency which the taxi driver may incur in the remittance of his “boundary.” 3. Furthermore, when Maldigan and Sabsalon stopped working for Five J Taxi, the alleged purpose for which the deposits were required no longer existed. As such, any balance due to private respondents after proper accounting must be returned to them with legal interest.

4. HOWEVER, Maldigan and Sabsalon are not entitled to the reimbursement of the car wash payments. 5. Car washing after a tour of duty is a practice in the taxi industry, and is, in fact, dictated by fair play. It is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same clean condition when he took it out.

6. There was nothing to prevent Maldigan and Sabsalon from cleaning the taxi units themselves if they wanted to save P20. :P