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.

Edgardo G. Fernandez for petitioners.

Ponente:
REGALADO, Justice

Facts:
- Petitioner is a Taxi business, and they filed this special civil action of certiorari against the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in the case between the same Petitioner (respondent at the time) and private
respondents, Maldigan and Sabsalon (petitioners at the time).
- Private respondents were hired by Petitioner as Taxi drivers, and were subjected to deposits every working day. Upon
several moments were private respondents failed to report for work due to several known and unknown reasons, and a
refusal by the Petitioner to grant them their deposits, their employment was terminated.
- Private respondents filed a complaint of illegal dismissal and illegal deductions to the NLRC where it was subsequently
dismissed, and on top of their accumulated deposits and interest therein, there was an attorney fee to be paid by the
private respondents.

Issue/s:
- Whether private respondents are entitled to reimbursement by the Petitioners;
- Whether the attorney fees have to be paid; and,
- Whether the ruling of the NLRC are final;

Ruling/Held:
- YES. The SC agrees with the decision of the NLRC that the daily deposits are illegal as they violate Article 114 of the
Labor Code. As such the private respondents must be refunded.
- NO. Upon investigation, the authorized representative of the private respondents was a non-lawyer that did not fall
within the purviews of Section 3 of Presidential Decree no. 1691. It is a clear mandate then that he is not entitled to
attorney fees. This is further strengthened by the need of an existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for
compensation.
- NO. The NLRC decision is MODIFIED in accordance with the rulings previously stated.

Doctrine/Basis:
- Article 114 of the Labor Code
- Canon 20