You are on page 1of 2

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 Sabsalons 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

You might also like