Case Digest (G.R. No. 111474)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 111474)
Facts:
Five J Taxi and/or Juan S. Armamento v. National Labor Relations Commission, Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon, G.R. No. 111474, August 22, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Five J Taxi and/or Juan S. Armamento are taxi operators who engaged private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon as taxi drivers under uniform terms: a daily "boundary" remittance (P700 for air‑conditioned taxis or P450 for non‑airconditioned), a P20 car‑wash payment per working day, and a P15 daily cash deposit to answer for any deficiency in the boundary. Maldigan was hired (reported dates vary) in late 1986/November 1987 as an extra driver; Sabsalon began in 1979, was held up and stabbed in 1983, later rehired in January 1987 on an alternate schedule, and on several occasions failed to report for work.
Over time both drivers left or ceased regular work for petitioners: Maldigan failed to report and was later found to be employed by "Mine of Gold" Taxi Company; Sabsalon abandoned a cab, failed to remit boundary on September 22, 1991, left without refueling (P300), and was later found driving for "Bulaklak Company." Maldigan in 1989 asked for reimbursement of his accumulated deposits; petitioners said the deposits had been used for taxi repairs and later terminated him when he insisted on a refund. Sabsalon claimed he was terminated when he refused to pay for seat‑cover washing.
On November 27, 1991, Maldigan and Sabsalon filed a complaint with the Manila Arbitration Office of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal and illegal deductions. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for inordinate delay in filing (two years), a ruling the NLRC affirmed as to illegal dismissal after finding evidence that the drivers had obtained other employment and/or abandoned their units. The NLRC nevertheless modified the arbiter’s disposition by ordering petitioners to refund the drivers’ accumulated deposits and car‑wash payments, with legal interest, and awarding 10% of the total as attorney’s fees. The NLRC decision was penned by Presiding Commissioner Bartolome S. Carale (NLRC NCR CA No. 003285‑92) with Commissioner S. E. Veloso concurring.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied. They then filed a special civil action for certiorari in this Court, challenging the NLRC’s awards as tainted by grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General filed recommendations that influenced the Court’s factual accounting assessment.
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the refunds, interest, and attorney’s fees?
- Are the daily P15 deposits required from the drivers illegal under Article 114 of the Labor Code, thereby entitling the drivers to reimbursement?
- Are the P20 car‑wash payments illegal deductions that must be refunded?
- Are attorney’s fees payable where the drivers were represented before the NLRC by a non‑lawyer, in light of Article 222 of the Labor Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1691?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)