Scribd
Upload
394 views1 page

Dentech vs. NLRC: Cash Bond Refund Ruling

Marbella, Torno, Tajan, and Torno were employed by Dentech Manufacturing Corporation but were dismissed for alleged abandonment of work. They filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking payment for the cash bonds they deposited with the company. The Court ruled that Dentech must refund the cash bonds. The Labor Code prohibits employers from requiring cash bonds except in certain authorized trades. Dentech did not prove it was authorized to require the cash bonds or that the bond proceeds were used as it claimed. Therefore, the dismissed employees were entitled to refund of their cash bonds.

Uploaded by

seventhwitch
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
394 views1 page

Dentech vs. NLRC: Cash Bond Refund Ruling

Marbella, Torno, Tajan, and Torno were employed by Dentech Manufacturing Corporation but were dismissed for alleged abandonment of work. They filed a complaint with the NLRC seeking payment for the cash bonds they deposited with the company. The Court ruled that Dentech must refund the cash bonds. The Labor Code prohibits employers from requiring cash bonds except in certain authorized trades. Dentech did not prove it was authorized to require the cash bonds or that the bond proceeds were used as it claimed. Therefore, the dismissed employees were entitled to refund of their cash bonds.

Uploaded by

seventhwitch
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Dentech vs.

NLRC
172 SCRA 588 | April 19, 1989
Facts:
Benjamin Marbella, Armando Torno, Juanito Tajan, Jr. and Joel Torno were employed as
welders, upholsterers and painters by of Dentech Manufacturing Corporation, a firm
engaged in the manufacture and sale of dental equipment and supplies. However, they
were dismissed from the firm due to their alleged abandonment of their work without
informing the company about their reasons fordoing so. Marbella et al filed a complaint
with the arbitration branch of the NLRC for illegal dismissal and violation of Presidential
Decree No. 851. Among other things they sought the payment of the cash bond they filed
with the company at the start of their employment.
Issue:
Whether or not Marbella et al are entitled to the refund of the cash bond they filed with
Dentech at the start of their service.
Held:
The Court held that refund of the cash bond filed by Marbella et al is in [Link] 114 of
the Labor Code prohibits an employer from requiting his employees to file a cashbond or to
make deposits, subject to certain exceptions: "when the employer is engaged in such
trades, occupations or business where the practice of making deductions or requiring
deposits is a recognize done, or is necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary of
Labor in appropriate rules and regulations."Dentech have not satisfactorily disputed the
applicability of this provision of the Labor Code tothe case at bar and further failed to show
that the company is authorized by law to require the private respondents to file the cash
bond in question. Its to the effect that the proceeds of the cash bond had already been given
to a certain carinderia to pay for the accounts of the private respondents there in does not
merit serious consideration. In fact, no evidence or receipt has been shown to prove such
payment.

You might also like