MR CHUA 6.

Five J Taxi vs NLRC Facts: · Private Respondent Maldigan and Sabsalon was hired by the Petitioner Company as taxi drivers. The contract was composed of a
24-hour shifting sched on 4 days. They had to make a boundary from 450 (non aircon) and 700 (aircon), adding to that are car washing expense and deposit for any deficiency
in the boundary · Petitioner learned Maldigan has been working for another taxi company, while Sabsalon was held up by armed passengers. · Sabsalon went back to work
but failed to report on several occasions, even leaving his taxi, and failing to remit his boundary mark · Respondents requested for the reimbursements of their respective
deposits, but petitioner refused because of the repairs incurred by their vehicles. · Respondent now files complaint for illegal dismissal and deduction Issue: · W/N deductions
were illegal. Held: · Yes, the deposits made were illegal · Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows: 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.