305 Phil.

601

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.:

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.

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 his 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 during his schedule.

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.

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 of Sabsalon is as follows:

DEPOSITS SHORTAGES
 VALES

P1,403.00 P 567.00 P1,000.00

720.00 760.00 200.00

686.00 130.00 1,500.00

605.00 570.00 --

165.00 2,300.00 --

P3,579.00 P4,327.00 P2,700.00

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 driven 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.)

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 service 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

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Penned by Presiding Commission Bartolome S. Carale, with Commissioner S. E.

Veloso concurring, in NLRC NCR CA No. 003285-92; Rollo, 35.

It appears that Maldigan was hired in November, 1987, although petitioners claim
[2]

that he was already working as an extra driver in October, 1986. Sabsalon started
working on June 24, 1979.

San Miguel Corporation vs. Javate, Jr., G.R. No. 54244, January 27, 1992, 205
[3]

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.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: June 14, 2017

Supreme Court E-Library