Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > February 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 82488 February 28, 1990 - VICENTE ATILANO v. DIONISIO C. DE LA SERNA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 82488. February 28, 1990.]

VICENTE ATILANO/ROSE SHIPPING LINES, Petitioner, v. HON. DIONISIO C. DE LA SERNA, Undersecretary, Department of Labor and Employment, HON. ADRIAN LOMUNTAD, Regional Director, Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. 7, MAMINTAS O. SANDALAN, CESAR PETALCORIN, JONATHAN SARADOR, BONIFACIO LASOLA, NILO CLAROS, GODOFREDO GRANADA, CRISTITUTO DAQUEL, LEONARDO LARGO, TOMAS OTADOY, LUIS GONZALES, PAULINO SIDO, GILBERT OSABEL, WILLIAM RONDOVIO, RUEL ORGE, NOLASCO P. AUSTERO, WILFREDO FLORES and BERNARDITO P. MANALO, Respondents.

Joaquin G. Chung, Jr. Law Offices and Assarga Law Firm for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; PD 850; REGIONAL DIRECTOR; VISITORIAL; AND ENFORCEMENT POWER; APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISION GOVERNING THE EXERCISE THEREOF EMBODIED IN PD 850. — LSED Case No. 055-85 was commenced on 20 May 1985; the order of the Regional Director in said case, which is here sought to be set aside, was issued on 16 January 1986, while the order of the same official denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of merit was rendered on 24 April 1986. The order of the Undersecretary of Labor here assailed was, as already noted, issued on 3 March 1988. At all material times — i.e., from 20 May 1985 through to 3 March 1988, the legal provisions governing the exercise of the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Regional Directors of Labor were embodied in P.D. No. 850 (promulgated on 16 December 1975) and Executive Order No. 111 (promulgated on 24 December 1986), amending Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; POSSESSED ENFORCEMENT/ADJUDICATION AUTHORITY OVER UNCONTESTED MONEY CLAIMS WHERE THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP REMAINED. — In Maternity and Children’s Hospital v. the Honorable Secretary of Labor, the Court made clear that under Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, the Regional Director of Labor possessed "enforcement/adjudication authority" over uncontested money claims where the employer-employee relationship remained.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AUTHENTICITY OF QUITCLAIMS, RELEASES AND WAIVER COULD BE VERIFIED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTORS. — On the basis of the submission of (quitclaims, releases and waiver) papers, petitioner now pretends that he had controverted the claims of private respondents and that he had raised issues which could not be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection, and that therefore the present case should go to the Labor Arbiter. We do not find petitioner’s argument persuasive. We believe that the question of the authenticity or genuineness of the quitclaims, releases and waivers supposedly signed by private respondents, but vehemently denied by the latter, could be verified by the Regional Director in the course of, and in connection with, examination of the petitioner’s books and records of which such supposed quitclaims, etc. (if at all genuine) must have formed part. We note also that after petitioner on 19 May 1986 filed a motion for reconsideration or appeal from the Regional Director’s order of 16 January 1986, with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Labor requested the Regional Director to conduct conferences or hearings for the purpose of verifying the genuineness and authenticity of private respondents’ signatures on the quitclaim papers submitted by petitioner. A report by an LSW officer of the Regional Director’s office showed that: (a) eight (8) of the private respondents denied the genuineness of their purported signatures appearing on the quitclaim and release papers shown to them for identification and (b) executed affidavits stating that they had not executed any document in favor of petitioner . . .

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENTS THAT COMPROMISE AGREEMENT MUST BE SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR NOT FOLLOWED IN CASE AT BAR. — The quitclaim papers which petitioner alleges embodied a compromise or settlement agreement were in any case not duly executed, that is, they were not signed in the presence of the Regional Director or his duly authorized representative, in disregard of the requirements of Section 8, Rule II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, which provide that: "Section 8. Compromise Agreement. — Should the party arrive at an agreement as to the whole or part of the dispute, said agreement shall be reduced [to] writing and signed by the parties in the presence of the regional director or his duly authorized representative."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; RETAINS VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 128(b) OF LABOR CODE; JURISDICTION OVER AMOUNT EXCEEDING P5,000, REQUISITES. — On 2 March 1989, Republic Act No. 6715 amending certain provisions of the Labor Code was enacted. In his concurring opinion in the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration in Briad Agro Development Corporation v. de la Cerna, Et Al., Mr. Justice Narvasa underscored that Republic Act No. 6715 had left Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code intact, in the sense that the Regional Director retains his visitorial and enforcement powers thereunder and could exercise such powers even though the amount involved was in excess of P5,000.00 provided that the employer had not contested the findings of the LSW officers by raising issues which can not be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable in the course of normal inspection.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY RA 6715 CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY SO AS TO SET ASIDE AND NULLIFY EARLIER COMPLETED EXERCISES OF JURISDICTION. — Should it be assumed for purposes of argument merely, that under Article 217 (6) of the Labor Code as last amended by Republic Act No. 6715, jurisdiction over wage claims like those involved in LSED Case No. 055-85 was transferred to the Labor Arbiter, it must still be pointed out that the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 6715 cannot be applied retroactively so as to set aside and nullify earlier, completed exercises of jurisdiction which had resulted in a decision which had become final and executory long before the enactment of Republic Act No. 6715. As noted earlier, at the time LSED Case No. 055-85 was commenced and at the time decision thereon was rendered by the Regional Director and affirmed by the Undersecretary of Labor, both officials undeniably had jurisdiction over the subject matter of LSED Case No. 055-85. That jurisdiction was not wiped out by the coming into effect of Republic Act No. 6715.

7. ID.; RULES ON THE DISPOSITION OF LABOR STANDARD CASES; LACK OF INSPECTION WAS CURED WHEN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR CALLED THE PARTIES TO CONFERENCES. — Finally, petitioner points to the failure of public respondent Regional Director to conduct an actual inspection of the establishment owned by petitioner, contending that the absence of such an inspection nullified the decision rendered by the Regional Director. This argument fails to take into account two (2) things: firstly, that the inability of the LSW officers of the Regional Director to conduct an actual inspection was due to refusal of petitioner’s own employees to permit inspection in the alleged absence of petitioner; secondly, Section 7, Rule II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases provides that: the lack of inspection was cured when the Regional Director called the parties to several conferences, at which conferences, petitioner could have presented whatever he had in his books and records to refute the claims of private respondents; petitioner did not do so and his failure must be deemed a waiver of his right to contest the conclusions of the Regional Director on the basis of the evidence and records actually made available to him.


D E C I S I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


This Petition for Certiorari is directed against the order of respondent Undersecretary of Labor and Employment dated 3 March 1988 which sustained the decision of respondent Regional Director in LSED Case No. 055-85. That decision awarded salary differentials, allowances, 13th month pay and overtime pay to the seventeen (17) private respondent employees of petitioner Vicente Atilano who is doing business under the rubric Rose Shipping Lines.

On 20 May 1985, private respondents filed a letter-complaint in the Regional Office of the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, Cebu City, against petitioner Rose Shipping Lines and its Proprietor/Manager Vicente Atilano docketed as LSED Case No. 055-85. The letter-complaint alleged violations by petitioner of labor standard laws on minimum wages, allowances, 13th month pay and overtime pay.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Acting on the letter-complaint, the Office of the Regional Director ordered a Labor Standards and Welfare Officer (LSW officer, hereinafter) to conduct a complaint inspection on 22 July 1985 at the establishment of petitioner in Cebu City. However, no actual inspection was effected because the owner, petitioner Mr. Vicente Atilano, was allegedly on a business trip to Manila, and his employees declined to allow the inspection in his absence.

Respondent Regional Director subsequently summoned the parties to conciliation conferences the first of which was held on 5 August 1985 where only the complainants (private respondents herein) appeared. The conference was then rescheduled to 16 August 1985 and on that meeting both the parties were represented. Another hearing was held on 21 August 1985 and there the private respondents submitted their position paper elaborating and documenting their claims. Petitioner did not file any position paper.

On 16 August 1985, while the above case was in progress, private respondents filed another complaint against petitioner for unpaid wages covering the month of July 1985 which case was docketed as LSED Case No. 061-85. On 26 August 1985, the parties were called to a conference regarding this second complaint during which petitioner Vicente Atilano appeared and promised to pay private respondents their unpaid salaries for the month of July not later than 30 August 1985, and their salaries for the month of August 1985 not later than 2 September 1985. Petitioner, however, failed to comply with this promise. On 6 September 1985, the Regional Director issued a Compliance Order requiring petitioner to pay private respondents the aggregate amount of Thirty Seven Thousand Sixty Five Pesos and Sixty Centavos (P37,065.60) representing the unpaid wages being claimed under the second complaint (LSED Case No. 061-85).

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Compliance Order, which was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution dated 11 October 1985. Counsel for private respondents immediately moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. The case was later appealed by petitioner to the then Minister of Labor and Employment which appeal was, however, dismissed on the ground that it was filed out of time. Petitioner then filed a motion to quash the writ of execution which motion was also denied. But in an order dated 26 January 1986, LSED Case No. 061-85 was dismissed on the ground that the claims of all the complaints had been fully settled by the petitioner.

Meanwhile, on 16 January 1986, the Regional Director issued an order in LSED Case No. 055-85 (the earlier case) the dispositive portion of which provided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent ROSE SHIPPING LINES and the Manager/Proprietor is (sic) hereby ordered to pay the claims of the complainants in the aggregate sum of SIX HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR PESOS AND 46/1000 (P660,594.46), Philippine currency, within 15 days from the receipt thereof, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the above order but instead filed an ex-parte motion to dismiss dated 24 January 1986 alleging that the case (No. 055-86) had been rendered moot and academic by the quitclaims and release papers dated 4 January 1986 signed by complainants in favor of respondents.

Private respondents filed an opposition to the ex-parte motion to dismiss, contending that the quitclaims and release papers referred to by petitioner (which quitclaims and papers had been prepared by petitioner) were intended to support the dismissal of LSED Case No. 061-85 (the later case) only.

In his comment on private respondents’ opposition to the ex-parte motion to dismiss, petitioner contended that the two (2) cases involved identical claims and concerned the same parties, and that the dismissal of LSED Case No. 061-85 was res judicata in respect of LSED Case No. 055-85. Petitioner added that the dispositive portion of the order dismissing LSED Case No. 061-85 refers not only to the claims of private respondents in the said case but to all claims of private respondents against petitioner including those which are the subject of LSED Case No. 055-85.

Several conciliation conferences on the motion to dismiss were subsequently held and both parties agreed that they would submit their respective position papers after which petitioner’s motion to dismiss would be deemed submitted for resolution.

On 24 April 1986, public respondent Regional Director denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed with the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment on 19 May 1986. Petitioner more than a year later filed a Manifestation and Motion with the Secretary dated 23 July 1987, enclosing therein a different set of quitclaims and releases also prepared by petitioner but allegedly signed by private respondents dated 9 July 1986 (i.e., different from those earlier referred to by petitioner in his ex-parte motion to dismiss filed with the Regional Director). On 3 March 1988, public respondent Undersecretary of Labor rendered the questioned order dismissing petitioner’s motion for reconsideration or appeal for lack of merit.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In the instant Petition for Certiorari, petitioner makes the following arguments:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Public respondents acted without jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of private respondents’ purported money claims.

2. Public respondents acted in excess of jurisdiction in not endorsing the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission for adjudication.

3. Public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in not conducting an actual inspection on the purported charges of labor standards violations.

4. Public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in summarily granting private respondents’ claims.

The main issue to be resolved herein is whether or not the public respondents, Regional Director and Undersecretary of Labor, have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Petitioner contends that the power to adjudicate the money claims here involved is vested solely in the Labor Arbiter.

1. LSED Case No. 055-85 was commenced on 20 May 1985; the order of the Regional Director in said case, which is here sought to be set aside, was issued on 16 January 1986, while the order of the same official denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of merit was rendered on 24 April 1986. The order of the Undersecretary of Labor here assailed was, as already noted, issued on 3 March 1988. At all material times — i.e., from 20 May 1985 through to 3 March 1988, the legal provisions governing the exercise of the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Regional Directors of Labor were embodied in P.D. No. 850 (promulgated on 16 December 1975) and Executive Order No. 111 (promulgated on 24 December 1986), amending Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code which, as amended, provided as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 128. Visitorial and enforcement power. — . . .

(b) The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exist, the Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

x       x       x"

In Maternity and Children’s Hospital v. the Honorable Secretary of Labor, 1 the Court made clear that under Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, the Regional Director of Labor possessed enforcement/adjudication authority" over uncontested money claims where the employer-employee relationship remained. The Court, through Mr. Justice Medialdea, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As seen from the foregoing, EO 111 authorizes a Regional Director to order compliance by an employer with labor standards provisions of the Labor Code and other legislation. It is Our considered opinion however, that the inclusion of the phrase, `The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists . . .’ in Article 128 (b), as amended, above-cited, merely confirms/reiterates the enforcement/adjudication authority of the Regional Director over uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists.

Viewed in the light of PD 850 and read in coordination with MOLE Policy Instructions Nos. 6, 7 and 37, it is clear that it has always been the intention of our labor authorities to provide our workers immediate access (when still feasible, as where an employer-employee relationship still exists) to their rights and benefits, without being inconvenienced by arbitration/litigation processes that prove to be not only nerve-wracking, but financially burdensome in the long run.

Note further the second paragraph of Policy Instructions No. 7 indicating that the transfer of labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system is.

‘. . . to assure the workers the rights and benefits due to him under labor standard laws, without having to go through arbitration. . .’

so that

‘. . . the workers would not litigate to get what legally belongs to

him . . . ensuring delivery . . . free of charge.’

Social justice legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our workers, must not be hampered in its application by long-winded arbitration and litigation. Rights must be asserted and benefits received with the least inconvenience. Labor laws are meant to promote, not defeat, social justice.

x       x       x


The proceedings before the Regional Director must, perforce, be upheld on the basis of Article 128 (b) as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24, 1986, this executive order ‘to be considered in the nature of a curative statute with retrospective application.’ (Progressive Workers’ Union, Et. Al. v. Hon. F.P. Aguas, Et. Al. [supra]; M. Garcia v. Judge A. Martinez, Et Al., G.R. No. L-47629, May 28, 1979, 90 SCRA 331)." (Citations omitted; Emphasis supplied).

2. Applying the Maternity and Children’s Hospital case to the case at bar, we consider that petitioner did not effectively controvert the money claims of private respondents against him, which claims originated from labor standards violations asserted to have been committed by petitioner.

The records of the present case show that petitioner, for reasons satisfactory to himself, did not contest the claims of private respondents despite the multiple opportunities therefor afforded to him. Petitioner did not file any answer to the letter-complaint submitted by private respondents to the Office of the Regional Director; neither did he file a position paper before that Office to controvert private respondents’ claims. It was only after the Regional Director had already rendered his ruling of 16 January 1986 in LSED Case No. 055-85 that petitioner tried to controvert the said claims by arguing that private respondents had subsequently executed quitclaims and releases in his favor. We note that petitioner did not question the correctness of the computations of the amounts due to each of the private respondents nor that said claims had not theretofore been paid by petitioner. After rendition of the Regional Director’s decision, petitioner attempted to set up a defense of subsequent compromise of and payment to or waiver by private respondents of their claims and presented what he contends were quitclaims, releases and waivers signed by private respondents. On the basis of the submission of such papers, petitioner now pretends that he had controverted the claims of private respondents and that he had raised issues which could not be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection, and that therefore the present case should go to the Labor Arbiter.

We do not find petitioner’s argument persuasive. We believe that the question of the authenticity or genuineness of the quitclaims, releases and waivers supposedly signed by private respondents, but vehemently denied by the latter, could be verified by the Regional Director in the course of, and in connection with, examination of the petitioner’s books and records of which such supposed quitclaims, etc. (if at all genuine) must have formed part. We note also that after petitioner on 19 May 1986 filed a motion for reconsideration or appeal from the Regional Director’s order of 16 January 1986, with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Labor requested the Regional Director to conduct conferences or hearings for the purpose of verifying the genuineness and authenticity of private respondents’ signatures on the quitclaim papers submitted by petitioner. A report by an LSW officer of the Regional Director’s office showed that:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

(a) eight (8) of the private respondents denied the genuineness of their purported signatures appearing on the quitclaim and release papers shown to them for identification and examination;

(b) the same private respondents executed affidavits stating that they had not executed any document in favor of petitioner; that the quitclaims, etc. submitted by petitioner were simulated and forged; and that private respondents had not tried to settle the case (LSED Case No. 055-85). 2

On the basis of the foregoing report, the Undersecretary of Labor stated in his 3 March 1988 order that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the face of the foregoing circumstances, we have no alternative but to deny respondents’ motion. Let it be noted that a careful examination of the signatures appearing in the quitclaims and releases will readily show quite apparent variance vis-a-vis the signatures affixed in the complaint. This aroused our suspicion on their due execution and genuineness and prompted us to cause the calling of concerned parties for verification. Said doubts and suspicion were confirmed and further strengthened by the outright denial made by complainants during the conferences called as well as in the sworn statements they subsequently submitted. We wish to state at this juncture that while it is our policy to encourage voluntary settlement of disputes, this Office can not approve a compromise agreement or settlement which is being questioned and in fact being denied by one of the parties. While it is true that respondents submitted quitclaims and releases and other documents purportedly executed by complainants to show that they have no more claims against respondents, said documents could not be given any weight after the complainants personally appeared during the hearing and declared that their signatures appearing thereon were simulated and forged and at the same time denied that any settlement was arrived at. Besides, the fact that those documents were supposed to be executed as early as July 9, 1986 but were submitted to this Office after more than a year has lapsed puts serious doubts on their authenticity. For if indeed there was an amicable settlement reached that early, why did it take respondent that long to notify us of the same and move for the dismissal of this case. More importantly, would it not be appropriate and logical for the parties, assisted by their respective counsels to file a joint motion to dismiss, if really they have come to terms. 3

The quitclaim papers which petitioner alleges embodied a compromise or settlement agreement were in any case not duly executed, that is, they were not signed in the presence of the Regional Director or his duly authorized representative, in disregard of the requirements of Section 8, Rule II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, which provide that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 8. Compromise Agreement. — Should the party arrive at an agreement as to the whole or part of the dispute, said agreement shall be reduced [to] writing and signed by the parties in the presence of the regional director or his duly authorized representative." (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the issue of the authenticity and genuineness of the two (2) sets of supposed quitclaims had been squarely raised before and passed upon and resolved by the Regional Director and the Undersecretary of Labor. We note that petitioner did not submit any rebuttal evidence before the Regional Director or his representatives. We note also that the set of supposed quitclaims purportedly signed as early as 9 July 1986, were first presented by petitioner in his Manifestation and Motion filed with the Undersecretary of Labor dated 23 July 1987, that is, more than a year after execution; and that, upon the other hand, the joint affidavits supposedly signed by private respondents attesting to the genuineness of the purported quitclaims are dated only as of 14 September 1987, or more than a year after the supposed quitclaims were signed.

The record thus strongly suggests that the issue of the genuineness or authenticity of the purported quitclaim documents was an issue belatedly manufactured by petitioner in the effort to evade the jurisdiction of the Regional Director and delay payment of the amounts awarded by the Regional Director.

3. On 2 March 1989, Republic Act No. 6715 amending certain provisions of the Labor Code was enacted. In his concurring opinion in the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration in Briad Agro Development Corporation v. de la Cerna, Et Al., 4 Mr. Justice Narvasa underscored that Republic Act No. 6715 had left Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code intact, in the sense that the Regional Director retains his visitorial and enforcement powers thereunder and could exercise such powers even though the amount involved was in excess of P5,000.00 provided that the employer had not contested the findings of the LSW officers by raising issues which can not be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable in the course of normal inspection:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the resolution, therefore, of any question of jurisdiction over a money claim arising from employer-employee relations, the first inquiry should be into whether the employment relation does indeed still exist between the claimant and the Respondent.

If the relation no longer exists, and the claimant does not seek reinstatement, the case is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by the Regional Director. On the other hand, if the employment relation still exists, or reinstatement is sought, the next inquiry should be into the amount involved.

If the amount involved does not exceed P5,000.00, the Regional Director undeniably has jurisdiction. But even if the amount of the claim exceeds P5,000.00, the claim is not on that account necessarily removed from the Regional Director’s competence. In respect thereof, he may still exercise the visitorial and enforcement powers vested in him by Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, supra; that is to say, he may still direct his labor regulations officers or industrial safety engineers to inspect the employer’s premises and examine his records; and if the officers should find that there have been violations of labor standards provisions, the Regional Director may, after due notice and hearing, order compliance by the employer therewith and issue a writ of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement thereof. However, this power may not, to repeat, be exercised by him where the employer contests the labor regulations officers’ findings and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. In such an event, the case will have to be referred to the corresponding Labor Arbiter for adjudication, since it falls within the latter’s exclusive original jurisdiction." (Emphasis supplied)

As already pointed out above, petitioner here did not controvert the findings of the LSW officers and the decision of the Regional Director, and that the issue he subsequently raised could, in any event, have been resolved, as it was in fact verified and resolved, in the normal course of inspection and conferences among petitioner and private respondents.cralawnad

4. Should it be assumed for purposes of argument merely, that under Article 217 (6) of the Labor Code as last amended by Republic Act No. 6715, jurisdiction over wage claims like those involved in LSED Case No. 055-85 was transferred to the Labor Arbiter, it must still be pointed out that the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 6715 cannot be applied retroactively so as to set aside and nullify earlier, completed exercises of jurisdiction which had resulted in a decision which had become final and executory long before the enactment of Republic Act No. 6715. As noted earlier, at the time LSED Case No. 055-85 was commenced and at the time decision thereon was rendered by the Regional Director and affirmed by the Undersecretary of Labor, both officials undeniably had jurisdiction over the subject matter of LSED Case No. 055-85. That jurisdiction was not wiped out by the coming into effect of Republic Act No. 6715. 5

5. Finally, petitioner points to the failure of public respondent Regional Director to conduct an actual inspection of the establishment owned by petitioner, contending that the absence of such an inspection nullified the decision rendered by the Regional Director. This argument fails to take into account two (2) things: firstly, that the inability of the LSW officers of the Regional Director to conduct an actual inspection was due to refusal of petitioner’s own employees to permit inspection in the alleged absence of petitioner; secondly, Section 7, Rule II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 2. Complaint inspection. — All such complaints shall immediately be forwarded to the Regional Director who shall refer the case to the appropriate unit in the Regional Office for assignment to a Labor Standards and Welfare Officer (LSWO) for field inspection. When the field inspection does not produce the desired results, the Regional Director shall summon the parties for summary investigation to expedite the disposition of the case . . ." (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the lack of inspection was cured when the Regional Director called the parties to several conferences, at which conferences, petitioner could have presented whatever he had in his books and records to refute the claims of private respondents; petitioner did not do so and his failure must be deemed a waiver of his right to contest the conclusions of the Regional Director on the basis of the evidence and records actually made available to him.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (C.J.), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. G.R. No. 78909, promulgated 30 June 1989.

2. Order, 3 March 1988, Rollo, p. 46.

3. Id., pp. 47-48; Italics supplied.

4. G.R. No. 82805, promulgated 9 November 1989.

5. See, a fortiori, e.g., Bengzon v. Inciong, 91 SCRA 248 (1979); Insurance Company of North America v. U.S. Lines Co., et. al., 17 SCRA 301 (1966); Iburan v. Labes, 87 Phil. 234 (1950).




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






February-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48494 February 5, 1990 - BRENT SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. v. RONALDO ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66394 February 5, 1990 - PARADISE SAUNA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO NG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75909 February 6, 1990 - RAMON FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77457 February 5, 1990 - ANITA LLOSA-TAN v. SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77777 February 5, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BAGANO

  • G.R. No. 81322 February 5, 1990 - GREGORIO D. CANEDA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86603 February 5, 1990 - ACTIVE WOOD PRODUCTS CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86647 February 5, 1990 - VIRGILIO P. ROBLES v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88623 February 5, 1990 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON, ET AL. v. RTC, MALABON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 40399 February 6, 1990 - MARCELINO C. AGNE, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44980 February 6, 1990 - VIRGINIA MARAHAY v. MENELEO C. MELICOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75154-55 February 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VICTOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76707 February 6, 1990 - RICARDO MEDINA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77050 February 6, 1990 - TOMAS BAYAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77713 February 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO AGAN

  • G.R. No. 77867 February 6, 1990 - ISABEL DE LA PUERTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80157 February 6, 1990 - AMALIA NARAZO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-272 February 6, 1990 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. PEDRO T. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 72129 February 7, 1990 - FILIPRO, INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74621 February 7, 1990 - BROKENSHIRE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77401 February 7, 1990 - SUZANO F. GONZALES, JR. v. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81100-01 February 7, 1990 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81344 February 7, 1990 - IRENE BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82272 February 7, 1990 - PONCIANO M. LAYUG v. LOURDES QUISUMBING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84392 February 7, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO A. NABUNAT

  • G.R. No. 84448 February 7, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR T. BADUYA

  • G.R. Nos. 78432-33 February 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CALDITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61570 February 12, 1990 - RUPERTO FULGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62024 February 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GINA M. SAHAGUN

  • G.R. No. 72742 February 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO OBANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83308 February 12, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO ECLARINAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83484 February 12, 1990 - CELEDONIA SOLIVIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85642 February 12, 1990 - EMILIO C. MACIAS, II v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87335 February 12, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA DE KNECHT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1625 February 12, 1990 - ANGEL L. BAUTISTA v. RAMON A. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-54305 February 14, 1990 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78732-33 February 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENIANO C. SOLIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31065 February 15, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45618 February 15, 1990 - MARIA C. ROLDAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-47747 February 15, 1990 - TAN ANG BUN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49833 February 15, 1990 - JUANITO RAMOS, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50373 February 15, 1990 - MANILA LIGHTER TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52295 February 15, 1990 - GUINOBATAN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSO., ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ALBAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53585 February 15, 1990 - ROMULO VILLANUEVA v. FRANCISCO TANTUICO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59670 February 15, 1990 - LEONARDO N. ESTEPA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61293 February 15, 1990 - DOMINGO B. MADDUMBA, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 62572-73 February 15, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69580 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73382 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO CAPILITAN

  • G.R. Nos. 75005-06 February 15, 1990 - JOSE RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79011 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEMION L. MANGALINO

  • G.R. No. 79672 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSENDO DELGADO

  • G.R. No. 81450 February 15, 1990 - JOHNSON G. CHUA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84048 February 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LETICIA SANIDAD DE DEL SOCORRO

  • G.R. No. 84193 February 15, 1990 - DIOSDADO V. RUFFY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85519 February 15, 1990 - UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86408 February 15, 1990 - BETA ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88442 February 15, 1990 - FELIX A. VELASQUEZ v. UNDERSECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44409 February 1, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO O. GONZALES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-50889 February 21, 1990 - MAXIMINO QUILISADIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54411 February 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO BIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-61113 February 21, 1990 - RICARDO MAXIMO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, BRANCH III, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66574 February 21, 1990 - ANSELMA DIAZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76922 February 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO A. CORRALES

  • G.R. No. 80728 February 21, 1990 - PEARL S. BUCK FOUNDATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83613 February 21, 1990 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE CO. v. METRO PORT SERVICE, INC.

  • G.R. No. 85448 February 21, 1990 - BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87439 February 21, 1990 - ODIN SECURITY AGENCY v. DIONISIO C. DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90639 February 21, 1990 - ESTATE OF CONCORDIA T. LIM, v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25660 February 23, 1990 - LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, ET AL. v. TEODORO VANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52018 February 23, 1990 - EFREN I. PLANA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52482 February 23, 1990 - SENTINEL INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55854 February 23, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. OTILIO G. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60211 February 23, 1990 - PERSEVERANDO N. HERNANDEZ v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75093 February 23, 1990 - DELIA R. SIBAL v. NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76042 February 23, 1990 - JOSE M. BELEN v. FELICIDARIO M. BATOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79160 February 23, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO P. BUSTARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84685 February 23, 1990 - ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85733 February 23, 1990 - ENRIQUE LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46613 February 26, 1990 - SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v. LUCIO BENARAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71838 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO M. BORJA

  • G.R. No. 73722 February 26, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. K.M.K. GANI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76338-39 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO H. TAC-AN

  • G.R. Nos. 76493-94 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO URIBE

  • G.R. No. 76590 February 26, 1990 - MARIA G. DE LA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76607 February 26, 1990 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. v. ELIODORO B. GUINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78885 February 26, 1990 - FILINVEST LAND, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79434 February 26, 1990 - DEOCRECIO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80738 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYDIA T. RAMA

  • G.R. No. 81356 February 26, 1990 - REYNOSO B. FLOREZA v. JAIME ONGPIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85333 February 26, 1990 - CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86147 February 26, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86250 February 26, 1990 - ALBERTO F. LACSON, ET AL. v. LUIS R. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88190 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URIEL TABLIZO

  • G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89132 February 26, 1990 - LEONCIA BACLAYON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77830 February 27, 1990 - VICTOR TALAVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80270 February 27, 1990 - CITY MAYOR OF ZAMBOANGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90641 February 27, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 26539 February 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48362 February 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO RAFANAN

  • G.R. No. 70261 February 28, 1990 - MAURO BLARDONY, JR. v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70997 February 28, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL JAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72145 February 28, 1990 - MA. EPPIE EDEN, ET AL. v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72805 February 28, 1990 - FILIPINAS MANUFACTURERS BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73741 February 28, 1990 - TEOFILO LINAZA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 77042-43 February 28, 1990 - RADIOWEALTH FINANCE CO., INC. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78903 February 28, 1990 - SEGUNDO DALION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79385 February 28, 1990 - STASA INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82488 February 28, 1990 - VICENTE ATILANO v. DIONISIO C. DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83768 February 28, 1990 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. 85284 February 28, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.