(WAGE DEDUCTION) RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES,

INC.,
Ernesto M. Apodaca vs. NLRC vs.
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Facts: Petitioner was employed in respondent’s
corporation. On August 28,1985, respondent Jose Mirasol Facts: on May 4, 1981, petitioner, a domestic corporation
persuaded petitioner to subscribe to 1, 500 shares of the engaged in the telecommunications business, filed with
respondent’s corporation at 100 pesos share or total of the National Wages Council an application for exemption
150, 000 pesos. He made an initial of 37, 500 pesos. On from the coverage of Wage Order No. 1. 2 The application
September 11, petitioner was appointed President and was opposed by respondent URCPICLA-FUR, a labor
general manager, however resigned on Jan. 2, 1986. organization affiliated with the Federation of Unions of
On Dec. 19, 1986, petitioner instituted with the NLRC a Rizal (FUR). On May 22, 1981, the National Wages
complaint for the payments of his unpaid wages, his cost Council, through its Chairman, rendered a letter-decision
of living allowance, the balance of his gasoline and 3
disapproving said application and ordering the
representation of expenses and his bonus. Private petitioner to pay its covered employees the mandatory
respondents admitted that there is due to petitioner the living allowance of P2.00 daily effective March 22, 1981.
amount of 17, 060.07 pesos but this was applied to the March 13, 1985, before the aforesaid case was elevated
unpaid balance of his subscription in the amount of 95, to this Court, respondent union filed a motion for the
439.93. petitioner questioned the set off but the NLRC issuance of a writ of execution, asserting therein its claim
held against the petitioner. to 15% of the total backpay due to all its members as
"union service fee" for having successfully prosecuted
Issue: Whether or not the respondent company is the latter's claim for payment of wages and for
allowed to set-off or deduct the unpaid stock reimbursement of expenses incurred by FUR and prayed
subscription against a money claims of the petitioner. for the segregation and remittance of said amount to FUR
thru its National President. Prior to the payment made to
Held: The unpaid subscription are not due and payable its employees, petitioner was ordered by the Regional
until a call is made by the corporation for payment. Director to deduct the 15% attorney's fee from the total
Private respondents have not presented resolution of the amount due its employees and to deposit the same with
board of directors of the corporation calling for the the Regional Labor Office. Petitioner failed to do so
payment of the unpaid subscription. allegedly because of the absence of individual written
No doubt that such set-off or deduction was without authorizations.
lawful basis, if not premature. As there was no notice or
call for payment of the unpaid subscriptions, the same is ISSUE; whether or not the contention of the petitioner in
not yet due and payable. Article 113 of the labor code not deducting the atty.’s fee to the 15% amount due to
allows deduction only to wit: the petitioner tenable.
1. In cases where the worker is insured with his
consent by the employer, and the deduction is
to recompense the employer the amount paid
by him as premium on the insurance; Held: Petitioner cannot invoke the lack of an individual
2. For union dues, in cases where the right of the written authorization from the employees as a shield for
worker or his union check-off has been its fraudulent refusal to pay the service fee of private
recognized by the employer or authorized in respondent. Prior to the payment made to its employees,
writing by the individual worker concerned; and petitioner was ordered by the Regional Director to
3. In cases where the employer is authorized by deduct the 15% attorney's fee from the total amount due
law or regulations issued by the secretary of its employees and to deposit the same with the Regional
labor Labor Office. Petitioner failed to do so allegedly because
of the absence of individual written authorizations. Be
that as it may, the lack thereof was remedied and
supplied by the execution of the compromise agreement
whereby the employees, expressly approved the 10%
deduction and held petitioner RCPI free from any claim,
suit or complaint arising from the deduction thereof.
When petitioner was thereafter again ordered to pay the
10% fees to respondent union, it no longer had any legal
basis or subterfuge for refusing to pay the latter.
(CHECK-OFF) P450.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi, they were also
MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY required to pay P20.00 for car washing, and to further
vs. make a P15.00 deposit to answer for any deficiency in
their "boundary," for every actual working day.
MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

Facts: This is a petition for review of a decision of the In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an
Court if Industrial Relation dated March 11, 1952, which extra driver by the petitioners, he already failed to report
has reaffirmed in a resolution adopted on May 28, 1952, for work for unknown reasons. Later, petitioners learned
granting the demand of respondent for check-off and for that he was working for "Mine of Gold" Taxi Company.
the payment of gratuity to its members in a modified With respect to Sabsalon, while driving a taxicab of
form following the gratuity awarded to former petitioners on September 6, 1983, he was held up by his
employees. armed passenger who took all his money and thereafter
stabbed him. He was hospitalized and after his discharge,
Issue: May an employer be compelled to 'check-off' union he went to his home province to recuperate.
dues from the wages of his employee when the employer
has been authorized to do so by the employee? 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
Held: Check-off may now be allowed if the employer is so was left of his deposits as these were not even enough to
authorized in writing by the employee upon the theory cover the amount spent for the repairs of the taxi he was
that it is necessary to promote the welfare and integrity driving. This was allegedly the practice adopted by
of the union to which he belongs. It is a forward step to petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the repair
promote social justice as envisages by our Constitution. 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
If we were to interpret the check-off system as one
employment was effected when he refused to pay for the
dependent solely upon the will of the employer, this
washing of his taxi seat covers.
objective would be defeated. This system would be as
good as not written. In this connection, we should not
lose sight of what the New Civil Code provides that "the Issue: Whether or not the petitioner company is allowed
relations between capital and labor are not merely to take deposit.
contractual. They are so impressed with public interest
that the labor contracts must yield to the common good." Held: It can be deduced therefrom that the said article
(Article 1700.) This is in keeping with social justice provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools,
materials or equipments supplied by the employer.
There is nothing novel in this demand in giving separation Clearly, the same does not apply to or permit deposits to
pay. This is in keeping with the policy long observed by defray any deficiency which the taxi driver may incur in
our government with regard to the retirements of its the remittance of his "boundary." Also, when private
employees who are given either a pension or a respondents stopped working for petitioners, the alleged
separation pay. We see no reason why this beneficent purpose for which petitioners required such
policy should not be extended to the laborers of the unauthorized deposits no longer existed. In other case,
commercial firm in the same way as they are given sick any balance due to private respondents after proper
and vacation leave with pay even if there is no express accounting must be returned to them with legal interest.
legal provision authorizing its payment.
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
FIVE J TAXI and/or JUAN S. ARMAMENTO respect to Maldigan's deposits, nothing was mentioned
questioning the same even in the present petition, thus,
vs.
Maldigan should be reimbursed the amount of his
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, accumulated cash deposits.
DOMINGO MALDIGAN and GILBERTO SABSALON

Facts: Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and