Short answer. No. The law says no deduction for a loss or damage may be made from an employee's deposits unless the employee has been heard on it and their responsibility has been clearly shown. A deduction made without either step is not authorized.
What the law says
No deduction from the deposits of an employee for the actual amount of the loss or damage shall be made unless the employee has been heard thereon, and his responsibility has been clearly shown.
Labor Code, Article 115 — Limits On Deductions. Read the full provision →
Two conditions, both required
The rule sets two conditions that must both be met before a deduction for a loss or damage is allowed: the employee must have been heard on the matter, meaning given a chance to explain or respond, and the employee's responsibility must have been clearly shown. Neither condition on its own is enough. An employer who skips the hearing, or who deducts on a mere suspicion without clearly establishing fault, has not satisfied what the law requires.
What kind of deduction this covers
The provision speaks of deductions from the deposits of an employee for the actual amount of a loss or damage. That frames the rule around deductions tied to a specific loss, breakage, shortage, or similar damage attributed to the employee, rather than deductions in general. It is meant to stop an employer from simply helping itself to money it believes covers a loss, without first confirming that the employee is actually the one responsible.
It is worth knowing where the deposit itself comes from. Article 114 allows an employer to require deposits for loss or damage only in trades where that practice is recognised, or where the Secretary of Labor determines it is appropriate. Article 115 then controls what may be taken out of such a deposit. Both questions can be live at once: whether the deposit could lawfully be required at all, and whether this particular deduction from it was justified.
Why the hearing requirement matters in practice
Being "heard" means the employee gets an opportunity to give their side before the deduction happens, not after. If an item breaks and money is taken out of an employee's pay or deposit before that employee has had any chance to explain what happened, whether it was an accident, someone else's fault, or ordinary wear, the deduction has already jumped ahead of the process the law lays out.
If a deduction was made without this
An employee who had money deducted for a broken item without ever being asked to explain, and without any clear finding that they were responsible, has grounds to question whether the deduction was proper under this rule. Raising the issue promptly, and keeping a record of when the deduction happened and what, if anything, was said about it beforehand, helps establish whether the two conditions the law requires were actually followed.
Note also how demanding clearly shown is. It is not enough that the item broke on your shift or that you were the last to handle it; responsibility has to be established, and a genuine doubt about who or what caused the loss is not a clear showing. A consent form signed when you were hired does not cure this either — the hearing the article requires is a hearing about the specific loss, held before the money is taken.