Wage Prohibitions Requirement to Make Deposits for Loss/ Damage

G.R. No. 111474 Five J Taxi v. NLRC

Regalado, J.
Respondent employees, two taxi drivers who left for other taxi companies, sought refunds of two kinds of daily deposits
they made to petitioner company. SC ruled that they were entitled to the refund of the boundary deficiency deposit, but not
to the car washing deposit.

DOCTRINE
Art. 114, LC. 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 deductions or
requiring deposits is a recognized one, or is necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment in appropriate rules and regulations.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Domingo Maldigan & Gilberto Sabsalon respondents
FACTS
1. Respondents were hired by petitioner company as taxi drivers. They worked 4 days/week, on a 24-hour shifting
schedule.
Aside from the P700 (aircon taxi) or P450 (non-aircon taxi) boundary, they also had to pay P20 for car
washing, and P15 deposit to answer for any deficiency in their boundary daily.
2. Less than 4 mos. later, respondent Maldigan failed to report for work for unknown reasons. Later, petitioner found out
that he was working for another taxi company, Mine of Gold.
Maldigan later asked petitioner for a refund of his cash deposits (see #1), but petitioner told him they werent
even enough for all the repairs that had to be done to the taxi he was driving. When he insisted, petitioner
terminated him.
3. As for respondent Sabsalon, while he was driving a taxi for petitioner, he was held up by a passenger who took all his
money and stabbed him. He was hospitalized; after his discharge, he went home to his province.
After being readmitted by petitioner, he was assigned on an alternative basis. He later failed to report for
work. One day, he abandoned his taxi in Makati without fuel refill worth P300. Despite requests by petitioners,
he refused and took a job for another company.
Sabsalon said he was terminated when he refused to pay for the washing of his taxi seat covers.
4. Respondents filed complaint for illegal dismissal and illegal deductions with NLRC.
LA dismissed the complaint because it took respondents two years to file it.
NLRC affirmed, because respondents abandoned their work for other companies. However, it ordered
petitioner to pay respondents back their deposits.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N the P15 (for boundary deficiency) and P20 (for car washing) daily deposits are covered by the prohibition
against requiring employees to make deposits Yes, but only for the P15 deposit.
Re: P15/day deposit for any shortage in the boundary SOLE has not recognized this kind of deposit as a
practice in the taxi industry. Thus, it is illegal.
o When respondents stopped working for petitioner, the purpose of the deposit to cover for boundary
shortages ceased to exist. The balance should be returned to them.
o However, Sabsalon already withdrew his deposits through vales (advances), and in fact he owes
petitioner P3,448.00. Only Maldigan has deposits he can still recover.
Re: P20/day deposit for car washing It is a practice in the taxi industry and dictated by fair play because the
taxi driver is responsible for returning the taxi to the garage in the same clean condition as he got it.
o The deposit was paid directly to who actually cleaned the taxi and not to petitioner, so the SC finds
nothing illegal in this practice. If the driver wanted to clean his taxi, he could save on the P20 deposit.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Judgment modified.

DIGESTER: Cristelle Elaine Collera