People vs. Santocildes, Jr. – GR no.

109149 – 1999;

FACTS:

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape of a girl less than nine years old. The court
rendered a decision finding appellant guilty as charged. However, during the proceeding, accused-
appellant was not represented by a member of the Bar. Hence, he filed a Notice of Appeal and praying
that the judgment against him be set aside on the ground that he was denied of his right to be
represented by a counsel which results to the denial of due process. The Office of the Solicitor General
maintains that notwithstanding the fact that appellant's counsel during the trial was not a member of
the Bar, he was afforded due process since he was given opportunity to be heard and records reveal
that said person handled the case in a professional and skillful manner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a person not member of the Philippine Bar may represent an accused in a criminal
proceeding.

HELD:

NO.

The presence and participation of counsel in criminal proceedings should never be taken lightly. Even
the most intelligent or educated man may be convicted without a counsel, not because he is guilty but
because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

The right of the accused to counsel is guaranteed to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system
where the accused is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the State. A person has the
right to due process, he must be heard before being condemned - a part of person's basic rights. The
right to counsel of an accused is enshrined in the Constitution (Art. III,Secs. 12 & 14(2)], Rules of Criminal
Procedure (Sec. 1 of Rule 115), Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the Constitution and the Rules of Court (Sec. 1 of Rule
138)

The assailed judgment is Set Aside, and the case is hereby Remanded to the trial court for new trial.

Five J Taxi and Juan Armamento v. NLRC, Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon

G.R. No. 111474. August 22, 1994

Facts:

1. Maldigan and Sabsalon were hired by the Five J Taxi as taxi driver. Nov. 1987 and June 1979,
respectively.
a. They worked for 4 days weekly on a 24 hour shifting schedule.
b. Aside from the daily “boundary” of P700.00 for air-conditioned taxi or P450.00 for non-air-
conditioned taxi, they were also required to pay P20.00 for car washing, and to further make
a P15.00 deposit to answer for any deficiency in their “boundary,” for every actual working
day.
2. Subsequently, in less than 4 months after he was hired, Maldigan failed to report to work for
unknown reasons.
3. Sabsalon was held up by his armed passenger who took all his money and stabbed him. He was
hospitalized and after his discharge, he went to his home province to recuperate.
4. While Sabsalon was re-admitted to work by Five J Taxi, he was only required to work every other
day. However, on several instances, he also failed to report for work during his schedule. Despite
repeated requests for him to report to work, he refused.
5. In 1989, Maldigan requested Five J Taxi for the reimbursement of his daily cash deposits for 2 years,
but they told him that nothing 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
Five J Taxi 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.
6. 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.
7. Maldigan and Sabsalon then filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and illegal
deductions. Complaint was dismissed.
a. The filing of the case was a mere after-thought since it took them two years to file the same.
Such delay is unreasonable.
b. It was also discovered that Maldigan was working for another taxi company called “Mine of
Gold” and that Sabsalon was driving a taxi for “Bulaklak Company.” Both of them failed to
controvert the evidence showing this and that they voluntarily left their jobs.
c. However, ordered Five J Taxi and Armamento to pay Maldigan and Sabsalon their
accumulated deposits and car wash payments.

Issue: WON Maldigan and Sabsalon’s deposits and car wash payments should be refunded. YES.

Held/Ratio: Deposits should be refunded to them. Car wash payments should not be refunded.

1. NLRC held that the P15.00 daily deposits made by respondents to defray any shortage in their
“boundary” is covered by the general prohibition in LC 114 against requiring employees to make
deposits, and that there is no showing that the Secretary of Labor has recognized the same as a
“practice” in the taxi industry. Therefore, the deposits made were illegal and the respondents must
be refunded.
2. It can be deduced that the LC114 provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools, materials
or equipment supplied by the employer. Clearly the same does not apply to or permit deposits not
to defray any deficiency which the taxi driver may incur in the remittance of his “boundary.”
3. Furthermore, when Maldigan and Sabsalon stopped working for Five J Taxi, the alleged purpose for
which the deposits were required no longer existed. As such, any balance due to private
respondents after proper accounting must be returned to them with legal interest.
4. HOWEVER, Maldigan and Sabsalon are not entitled to the reimbursement of the car wash payments.
5. Car washing after a tour of duty is a practice in the taxi industry, and is, in fact, dictated by fair play.
It is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same clean condition when
he took it out.
6. There was nothing to prevent Maldigan and Sabsalon from cleaning the taxi units themselves if they
wanted to save P20. :P