Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 369 views

    Five J Taxi vs. National Labor Relations Commission

    Uploaded by

    Xandee Teh Kuizon
    1) Two taxi drivers, Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against their employer, Five J Taxi, alleging illegal dismissal and deductions. 2) The NLRC ruled in favor of the taxi drivers and awarded reimbursement for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. 3) The Supreme Court modified the NLRC ruling by removing the awards for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. It found that the drivers' representative was a non-lawyer and thus not entitled to attorney's fees under Philippine labor law. The Court did uphold refunding Maldigan's deposits with interest.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Five J Taxi vs. National Labor Relations Commission

    Uploaded by

    Xandee Teh Kuizon
    369 views1 page
    1) Two taxi drivers, Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against their employer, Five J Taxi, alleging illegal dismissal and deductions. 2) The NLRC ruled in favor of the taxi drivers and awarded reimbursement for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. 3) The Supreme Court modified the NLRC ruling by removing the awards for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. It found that the drivers' representative was a non-lawyer and thus not entitled to attorney's fees under Philippine labor law. The Court did uphold refunding Maldigan's deposits with interest.

    Original Title

    Five j Taxi vs. National Labor Relations Commission

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Two taxi drivers, Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against their employer, Five J Taxi, alleging illegal dismissal and deductions. 2) The NLRC ruled in favor of the taxi drivers and awarded reimbursement for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. 3) The Supreme Court modified the NLRC ruling by removing the awards for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. It found that the drivers' representative was a non-lawyer and thus not entitled to attorney's fees under Philippine labor law. The Court did uphold refunding Maldigan's deposits with interest.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    369 views1 page

    Five J Taxi vs. National Labor Relations Commission

    Uploaded by

    Xandee Teh Kuizon
    1) Two taxi drivers, Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against their employer, Five J Taxi, alleging illegal dismissal and deductions. 2) The NLRC ruled in favor of the taxi drivers and awarded reimbursement for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. 3) The Supreme Court modified the NLRC ruling by removing the awards for car wash expenses and attorney's fees. It found that the drivers' representative was a non-lawyer and thus not entitled to attorney's fees under Philippine labor law. The Court did uphold refunding Maldigan's deposits with interest.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    FIVE J TAXI and/or JUAN S. ARMAMENTO vs. true that Guillermo H.

    Pulia was the authorized


    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION representative of private respondents, he was a non-
    lawyer who did not fall in either of the foregoing
    Facts: categories. Hence, by clear mandate of the law, he is not
    entitled to attorney's fees.
    Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto
    Sabsalon were hired by the petitioners as taxi drivers. In Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be
    less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an extra entitled to have and recover from his client a reasonable
    driver by the petitioners, he already failed to report for compensation for his services 7 necessarily imports the
    work for unknown reasons. Later, petitioners learned existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition
    that he was working for "Mine of Gold" Taxi Company. for the recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship
    With respect to Sabsalon, while driving a taxicab of cannot exist unless the client's representative is a
    petitioners on September 6, 1983, he was held up by his lawyer.8
    armed passenger who took all his money and thereafter
    stabbed him. He was hospitalized and after his WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of respondent
    discharge, he went to his home province to recuperate. National Labor Relations Commission is hereby
    In January, 1987, Sabsalon was re-admitted by MODIFIED by deleting the awards for reimbursement
    petitioners as a taxi driver under the same terms and of car wash expenses and attorney's fees and directing
    conditions as when he was first employed, but his said public respondent to order and effect the
    working schedule was made on an "alternative basis," computation and payment by petitioners of the refund
    that is, he drove only every other day. However, on for private respondent Domingo Maldigan's deposits,
    several occasions, he failed to report for work during his plus legal interest thereon from the date of finality of this
    schedule. On September 22, 1991, Sabsalon failed to resolution up to the date of actual payment thereof.
    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, and asking for paying the private
    respondent’s authorized representative’s attorney’s fees.

    RULING:

    On the 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

    You might also like