ChanRobles Virtual law Library

G.R. No. 154746. November 27, 2002

MAXAM CONSTRUCTION, et al. vs. C.A. , et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated 27 NOVEMBER 2002 :

G.R. No. 154746. (Maxam Construction and/or Maximo R. Angeles, Jr. and/or Ms. Geronima B. Angeles v. The Court of Appeals, The Honorable Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, Dir. Maximo B. Lim, DOLE, NCR, Toradio Aguilar, Pedro Ferran, Gerry de Leon, Rodolfo Dilizo, Adriano Lopez, Domingo Vergara, Ariel Betangcor, Alvin Betangcor, Perfecto Gonzales, Alfonso Aguilar, Delfin Vilena, Marcelino Dela Cruz, Reynaldo Magpayo, Jimmy Cruz, Gaudencio Cabuhat, Gaudisio Cabuhat, Florencio Cabuhat, Edwin Llarimas, Cristopher Cabangon, Edgar Laarinas and Cristopher Cabuhat).

Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners Maxam Construction and/or the spouses Maximo R. Angeles and Geronima B. Angeles in the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), National Capital Region, for non-payment of Social Security System premiums and 13th month pay. Accordingly, an inspection of private respondents' workplace was conducted, in the course of which other possible violations of petitioners for underpayment of wages and non-payment of benefits were also noted. On March 15, 1999 , an order was issued requiring petitioners Maxam Construction and/or Maximo R. Angeles, Jr./Geronima Angeles to pay to private respondents the total amount of P1,091,776.00 representing unpaid wages and benefits.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was treated as an appeal to the DOLE head office. Petitioners were required to file an appeal bond pursuant to Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code and, because they failed to do so, Secretary of Labor Patricia Sto. Tomas dismissed their case in an order issued on November 20, 2001 . Petitioners sought reconsideration, but their motion was denied on February 7, 2002 .

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals against the November 20, 2001 and February 7, 2001 orders of the Secretary of Labor. In a resolution dated April 4, 2002 , the appeals court dismissed the petition for technical defects and for lack of merit. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was similarly denied. Hence this petition.

The petition has no merit. Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, an appeal from an order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to enforce labor standards may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award stated in the order appealed from. Consequently, as petitioners in this case failed to post the said bond despite due notice to them, the order of March 15, 1999 , requiring them to pay the sum of money in question to private respondents, became final and executory.

Petitioners' claim that they did not file any bond because the order of March 15, 1999 was issued by Regional Director Lim in excess of his jurisdiction under Art. 129 of the Labor Code because the claims of each of the private respondents exceeded P5,000.00 has no merit. Art. 128(b) provides that the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor to enforce labor standards are applicable "notwithstanding the provision of Art. 129" (See Allied Investigation Bureau v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 319 SCRA 77 (1999)).

Furthermore, as petitioners failed to attach to their petition in the Court of Appeals a certified true copy of the questioned orders of the Secretary of Labor, their petition was correctly dismissed.

WHEREFORE , the petition for review is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

By:

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Asst. Div. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE