Genesis Transport Service, Inc.

v Unyon ng Malayang Manggagawa ng Genesis Transport

(UMMGT)
G.R. No. 182114 | April 5, 2010
Wage Deduction

FACTS:
 Private respondent Taroy was hired as a driver on commission basis at 9% of the gross
revenue per trip by petitioner Genesis Transport Service, Inc.
 On May 2002, Taroy was, after due notice and hearing, terminated after an accident April
2002 where he was deemed to have been driving recklessly. Taroy then filed a complaint
for ID and payment of SIL. He later amended the complaint to include UMMGT as a
complainant and added ULP and reimbursement of illegal deductions on tollgate fees.
 Taroy alleges that petitioner deducted amounts ranging from P160 to P900 representing
toll fees, without his consent and authorization as required by Art. 113 of the LC.
 Genesis Transport countered by saying that Taroy committed several violations of
company rules and was afforded due process by putting him in preventive suspension,
allowing him to explain in writing his involvement, and conducting a hearing.
 Labor Arbiter: Genesis Transport proved that the dismissal was for a valid cause and Taroy
was not entitled to SIL because he was a field personnel pain on a commission basis.
However, the LA ruled in favor of the respondent in relation to the refund because even
though the toll fees were deducted from the gross revenues, such deduction still diminishes
the take home pay of the employees.
 NLRC: Affirmed the LA decision and denied the MR.
 Court of Appeals: Petitioner violated the IRR of the LC by suspending Taroy for more than
30 days and awarded nominal damages. MR denied.

ISSUE with CORRESPONDING RATIO:

WoN the case is barred by res judicata

NO. The principle of res judicata does not apply.
 The petitioner claims that similar issues on refunds of underpayment have been decided
with finality in their favor in the cases of UMMGT v Genesis Transport, Reyes v Genesis
Transport, and Santos v Genesis Transport.
o However, absent proof that the NLRC cases have attained finality, the Court cannot
consider them as constituting res judicata.

WoN the Court can take judicial notice on the claim that the deduction of toll fees from the
gross earnings is a long-standing practice and tradition in the transportation industry
(MAIN)
No. Petitioner failed to prove that it must be a judicially noticed fact.
 Requisites for judicial notice: (Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v CA)
o Must be of common and general knowledge
o Must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain
 o Must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court
 Moreover, a judicially noticed fact is:
o Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court
o Capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.
 None of the requisites were satisfied in claiming that the amounts representing the toll fees
being deducted from gross revenues was a judicially noticed fact.
 NLRC and CA correctly held that withholding those amounts would reduce the
amount of from which the 9% commission would be computed.
o Such computation marks a change in method of payment of wages, in violation of
Art. 113 vis-à-vis Art. 100 of the LC AND there was no written consent or
authorization from Taroy.
o “Company practice” defense is generally used in the grant of additional benefits,
not a diminution.

WoN Taroy’s right to due process was violated

No. Genesis did not violate Taroy’s right to statutory due process.
 Respondent claims that he was suspended for more than 30 days.
 The Rules require that the employer act on the case of the employee under suspension
within 30 days. After the period, the employer must reinstate the employee or extend the
suspension provided that the employer pays the wages and benefits are pain in the interim.
 In the instant case, Genesis had until May 20, 2002 to act on Taroy’s case. It did so by
terminating him through a notice dated May 10, 2002, hence the 30-day period was not
violated even if Taroy only received only on June 4, 2002.

WHEREFORE, the challenged Court of Appeals Decision of August 24, 2007 and Resolution13 of
March 13, 2008 are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the award of nominal damages
to respondent Juan Taroy is DELETED.