Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > October 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 93550 October 4, 1991 - SSFBWA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93550. October 4, 1991.]

SPHINX SECURITY AND FOREIGN BOAT WATCHMAN AGENCY; and WASHINGTON EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR; and THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION XII, Respondents.

Floro V. Cabales for SSFBWA.

Albert B. Abragan for WESCO.

Alan L. Flores for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR ARBITER; SCOPE OF POWER OVER MONEY CLAIMS. — The exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter is confirmed by the provisions of Article 129 which exclude from the jurisdiction of the Regional Director or any hearing officer of the Department of Labor the power to hear and decide claims of employees arising from employer-employee relations exceeding the amount of P5,000.00 for each employee.


D E C I S I O N


SARMIENTO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, questioning and seeking annulment of the Compliance Order dated September 12, 1989 of the Regional Director of Region XII, Cotabato City.

The Order provided the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


Conformably with this, this office computed the entitlements of the thirteen (13) complainants to determine the liabilities of the respondent based on the pay rolls and other documents on file. This showed an aggregate amount of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHTY SEVEN PESOS and 45/100 (P369,087.45) broken down as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Wages 13th mo. Incentive Total

pay leave pay

1. Bienvenido 26,866.48 2,566.68 432.36 29,865.52

Alao

2. Edgar 26,818.13 2,563.45 431.86 29,813.45

Aniñon

3. Romeo 29,689.26 2,697.86 454.23 32,841.35

Aniñon

4. Flaviano 27,172.08 2,580.26 434.74 30,187.08

Aniñon

5. Herman 26,944.46 2,570.00 432.85 29,947.31

Aniñon

6. Pablito 26,315.37 2,536.80 427.15 29,279.32

Bubuli

7. Celerio 27,234.44 2,583.58 295.23 30,113.25

Sabeniano

8. Pedro 15,139.64 1,324.16 294.11 16,757.91

Gabaya

9. Mario 26,151.68 2,536.95 422.93 29,111.56

Mahinay

10. Fedelito 18,649.90 1,793.32 301.90 20,745.12

Tingcang

11. Cesario 27,925.23 2,615.32 440.70 30,980.82

Valesco

12. Alberto 26,646.42 2,565.02 432.57 29,644.01

Rible

13. Eugene 26,806.18 2,563.36 431.81 29,801.35

Rimando

Wherefore premises considered, respondent Sphinx Security and Foreign Boat Watchman Agancy and Washington Equipment and Supply Company is (sic) hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the following complainants namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Bienvenido Alao P29,865.52

Edgar Anison, P29,813.45

Romeo Aniñon, P32,841.35

Flaviano Anison, P30,187.08

Herman Aniñon, P29,947.31

Pablito Bubuli, P29,279.32

Celerio Sabeniano P30,113.25

Pedro Gabaya P16,757.91

Mario Mahinay P29,111.56

Fedelito Tingcang P20,745.12

Cesario Valesco P30,980.82

Alberto Rible P29,644.01

Eugene Rimando P29,801.35

SO ORDERED. 1

x       x       x


The herein petitioner, Sphinx Security and Foreign Boat Watchman Agency (SSFBWA), is the employer of the thirteen security guards.

The co-petitioner, Washington Equipment and Supply Company (WESCO), hired for its security needs, the thirteen guards from the petitioner SSFBWA.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

On November 3, 1988, the thirteen security guards of petitioner SSFBWA filed a letter-complaint addressed to the Office of the President, against the petitioner SSFBWA, for the alleged non-compliance with Republic Act No. 6640, enacted on December 20, 1987, providing among others, for an increase in the statutory minimum wage and salary rates of employees and workers in the private sector.

The letter-complaint was endorsed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor on November 18, 1988 and later to the Office of the Regional Director of Region XII in Cotabato City for action.

On January 19, 1989, the Labor Employment and Development Officers of Region XII conducted an inspection of the records and premises of petitioner SSFBWA, and as a result, reported the following violations of labor standards:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. underpayment of wages

b. non-integration of ECOLA

c. underpayment of the 13th month pay and

d. underpayment of five days service incentive leave pay.

On March 20, 1989, the Region XII Office (Iligan City) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) conducted a summary investigation which prompted the SSFBWA to challenge the jurisdiction of the DOLE. In addition, SSFBWA said that WESCO had to settle the deficiencies since it had traditionally done so, as mandated in Section 6, Republic Act No. 6727. 2 WESCO also objected to the findings/report since it was not mentioned as a party in the complaint.

On March 30, 1989, the DOLE called for a "hearing" with all the parties present. In the position papers that were later on submitted, both parties argued that DOLE had no jurisdiction in the case at bar, in addition to their objections to the findings on the existence of deficiencies.

Finally, on September 12, 1989, the Regional Director of Region XII rendered its now disputed Compliance Order. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner SSFBWA having been denied, this petition for certiorari is now filed.

The issue now before us is whether or not the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the complaint for deficiency in wages filed against the SSFBWA.

We grant the petition.

Under the law, the Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the claims of the petitioners.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Article 217(a), Section 6 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. — (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following case involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(6) Except claims for employees compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

x       x       x


This exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter is confirmed by the provisions of Article 129 which exclude from the jurisdiction of the Regional Director or any hearing officer of the Department of Labor the power to hear and decide claims of employees arising from employer-employee relations exceeding the amount of P5,000.00 for each employee.

Article 129 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


Art. 129. Recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits. — Upon complaint of any interested party, the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment or any other duly authorized hearing officers of the Department is empowered, through summary proceeding and after due notice, to hear and decide any matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or person employed in domestic or household service or househelper under this Code, arising from employer-employee relations: Provided, That such complaint does not include a claim for reinstatement: Provided, further, that the aggregate money claims of each employee or househelper do not exceed Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) . . . (Emphasis supplied).

As held in Servando’s Incorporated v. Secretary of Labor and Employment: 3

To construe the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to order and enforce compliance with labor as including the power to hear and decide cases involving employees’ claims for wages, arising from employer-employee relations, even if the amount of said claims exceed P5,000.00 for each employee, would, in our considered opinion, emasculate and render meaningless, if not useless, the provisions of Article 217 (a) (6) and Article 129 of the Labor Code which, as above-pointed out, confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Labor Arbiter to hear and decide such employees’ claims (exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee).chanrobles law library

In addition,

x       x       x


We further hold that to harmonize the above-quoted three (3) provisions of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor should be held as possessed of his plenary visitorial powers to order the inspection of all establishments where labor is employed, to look into all possible violations of labor laws and regulations but the power to hear and decide employees’ claims exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee should be left to the Labor Arbiter as the exclusive repository of the power to hear and decide such claims. In other words, the inspection conducted by the Secretary of Labor, through labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers, may yield findings of violations of labor standards under labor laws; the Secretary of Labor may order compliance with said labor standards, if necessary, through appropriate writs of execution but when the findings disclose an employee claim of over P5,000.00, the matter should be referred to the Labor Arbiter in recognition of his exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. 4

Moreover, we disagree with the private respondents who may want to give the impression that the provisions of R.A. 6715 do not affect the case at bar simply because its antecedents date back to November 3, 1988. Like its predecessors, E.O. No. 111 and Article 217 as amended, R.A. 6715 has retroactive application. 5

Thus, without going into the merits of the petitioners’ contentions against the respondents, the referral of this case to the appropriate Labor Arbiter becomes a juridical necessity.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the proceedings conducted before the Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment in IGN-CI-02-89-016 are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The parties are hereby given fifteen (15) days, from the date of the receipt of the promulgated copies of this order, to submit their respective pleadings before the Labor Arbiter.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, 21.

2. June 9, 1989.

3. G.R. No. 85840, June 5, 1991.

4. Ibid.

5. Briad Agro Development Corporation v. De la Cerna, G.R. No. 82805 and Camus Engineering Corporation v. The Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 83225, November 9, 1988, 179 SCRA 274. See also Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. The Hon. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. 74621, February 7, 1990, 182 SCRA 10-12.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 89093 October 2, 1991 - POE MINING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96141 October 2, 1991 - EVANGELISTA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53837 October 3, 1991 - FELIX PAINAGA v. NOLI MA. CORTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81567 October 3, 1991 - IN RE: ROBERTO UMIL, ET AL. v. FIDEL V. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85464 October 3, 1991 - DAVID P. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87184-85 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VIRAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88636 October 3, 1991 - LINA B. OCTAVIANO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89325-26 October 3, 1991 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90739 October 3, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91162 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO F. CARAIG

  • G.R. No. 91271 October 3, 1991 - RESTITUTO P. RIZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91626 October 3, 1991 - FRANKLIN DRILON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91716 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO T. CAMPOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95136 October 3, 1991 - RAFAEL BAYLOSIS, ET AL. v. APOLONIO R. CHAVEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 90-474 October 4, 1991 - CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-583 October 4, 1991 - MANOLO D. ADRIANO v. EUSTAQUIO P. STO. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 60714 October 4, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JAPAN AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79004-08 October 4, 1991 - FRANKLIN BAGUIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83697 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BENITEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83720 October 4, 1991 - FELICITAS ENRIQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88233 October 4, 1991 - OSCAR NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91109 October 4, 1991 - SARKIES AND MOLAVE TOURS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92646-47 October 4, 1991 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93300 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BALLINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93550 October 4, 1991 - SSFBWA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95026 October 4, 1991 - SPS. PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95625 October 4, 1991 - HIYAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95680 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO NGO

  • G.R. No. 82350 October 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC LONDOÑO

  • G.R. No. 93464 October 7, 1991 - REYMA BROKERAGE, INC. v. PHILIPPINE HOME ASS. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95582 October 7, 1991 - DANGWA TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90745 October 10, 1991 - INTER-CAPITOL MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93690 October 10, 1991 - ERECTORS, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97332 October 10, 1991 - SPS. JULIO D. VILLAMOR AND MARINA VILLAMOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97664 October 10, 1991 - OUANO ARRASTRE SERVICE, INC. v. PEARY G. ALEONAR, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 90-7-1159-MTC October 15, 1991 - IN RE: SOLICITATION OF DONATIONS BY JUDGE BENJAMIN H. VIRREY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-602 October 15, 1991 - RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG v. TERESlTA GARAMPIL VDA. DE BLAS

  • Adm. Case No. 1424 October 15, 1991 - ISMAELA DIMAGIBA v. JOSE MONTALVO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73504 October 15, 1991 - BALMAR FARMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78781-82 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAVELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81093 October 15, 1991 - PORAC TRUCKING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85133 October 15, 1991 - FLORITA E. DALUYON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM.

  • G.R. No. 86926 October 15, 1991 - CESAR E. A. VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90319 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91363-73 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO VINAS

  • G.R. Nos. 92362-67 October 15, 1991 - CIRILO A. CINCO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92542 October 15, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZENAIDA ELEPANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94677 October 15, 1991 - ORIGINAL DEV’T. AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95624 October 15, 1992

    DANTE G. BUGAYONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96535 October 15, 1991 - INOCENCIO PARI-AN, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96859 October 15, 1991 - MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO v. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96938 October 15, 1991 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97105 October 15, 1991 - ROSETTE YNIGUEZ LERIAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991 - RODOLFO D. LLAMAS v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991 - GENEROSA BUTED, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. Nos. 79926-27 October 17, 1991 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., ET AL. v. CITIBANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80747-48 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERLO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 92241 October 17, 1991 - LILIA T. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92447 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENERANDO NEBREJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92633 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SADIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96016 October 17, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96368-69 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERUBIEN Z. NABAYRA

  • G.R. No. 96713. October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARBOLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98023 October 17, 1991 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45031 October 21, 1991 - NANERICO D. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50264 October 21, 1991 - IGNACIO WONG v. LUCAS D. CARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56487 October 21, 1991 - REYNALDA GATCHALIAN v. ARSENIO DELIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991 - NICOMEDES SILVA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

  • G.R. No. 85176 October 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83498 October 22, 1991 - SPS. MIGUEL S. JUANITA KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 33438 October 28, 1991 - REPUBLIC RESOURCES AND DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44712 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55393 October 28, 1991 - FAGEL TABIN AGRICULTURAL, CORP. v. EMILIO A. JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71562 October 28, 1991 - JOSE C. LAUREL V v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74070-71 October 28, 1991 - SUNSHINE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74197 October 28, 1991 - JOSEPHINE L. LUCERO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84730 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 88301 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAMOS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93413 October 28, 1991 - EDWIN DEL CARMEN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94369 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CO

  • G.R. No. 94521 October 28, 1991 - OLIVER O. LOZANO v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. No. 95631 October 28, 1991 - METALS ENGINEERING RESOURCES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98273 October 28, 1991 - CLARITA V. CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100239 October 28, 1991 - BONIFACIO S. MACEDA, JR., ET AL. v. MOREMAN BUILDERS CO., INC., ET AL.