CAÑOS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. AND AVELYN B. ANTONIO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO (UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR) AND EMMA G. TRAZO, HELEN ALLOREZ (ALBORES), NIMFA SANTOS, …

This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the order
dated January 14, 1991 of Labor Undersecretary Cresencio B. Trajano affirming
the order of the Director of Regional Office No. XI which directed the Caños
Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as “CMC”) and Avelyn B.
Antonio to pay thirty (30) hospital employees the total sum of P877,804.02 as
wage differential, cost of living allowance, holiday pay, incentive pay and
13th month pay for the period of July 1, 1987 up to July 1990 (3 years), and the
order of April 1, 1991 of the same Labor Undersecretary denying the Hospital’s
motion for reconsideration of his earlier order dated January 14, 1991.

The thirty (30) private respondents herein were rank and file
employees of the CMC which employed some fifty (50) workers with Avelyn B.
Antonio as administrator. On July 18,
1990, private respondents filed in the Regional Office No. XI of the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in Davao City, a complaint against CMC and
Avelyn B. Antonio (Case No. R1100-9007-CI-073) for noncompliance with Republic
Act No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act).

A routinary inspection was conducted on April 19,1990 at the CMC
premises by an officer of the Labor Standards Enforcement Division of the
DOLE. The inspection revealed
violations of labor standards laws, particularly underpayment of wages and
thirteenth month pay and non-integration of emergency cost of living allowance
into the basic wage pursuant to Executive Order No. 178. Summary hearings were conducted by the DOLE
Regional Office on those findings, but during the pendency of the hearings, the
private respondents were retrenched and laid off.

The CMC, through its administrator, admitted noncompliance and
nonimplementation of the salary increase mandated by Republic Act No.
6727. On July 27, 1990, based on the
records of CMC, the DOLE inspector came out with a computation of the
employees’ claims in the total sum of P877,804.02, as follows:

(p. 28, Rollo.)

On September 4, 1990, Regional Director Bartolome C. Amoguis
issued an order directing CMC and/or Mrs. Avelyn B. Antonio to pay the private
respondents the above amounts opposite their names, within ten (10) days from
notice.

CMC and Mrs. Antonio filed a motion for reconsideration assailing
the jurisdiction of the Regional Director to adjudicate the monetary claims of
the private respondents.

Treating the motion for reconsideration as an appeal, the DOLE,
through Undersecretary Cresencio B. Trajano, dismissed it on January 14, 1991
for lack of merit. The Regional
Director defended his jurisdiction, citing Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code and
the decision of this Court in Maternity Children’s Hospital
vs. Secretary of Labor, 174 SCRA 632.

The motion for reconsideration of the order of January 14, 1991
was denied by Undersecretary Trajano on April 1, 1991. On April 18, CMC and Mrs. Antonio filed a
“petition for review on certiorari” in this Court. Docketed as G.R. No. 98174, the petition was
dismissed on May 13, 1991 for failure to comply with Circular 1-­88, paragraphs
1 and 3.

On August 26, 1991, petitioners filed this new petition for certiorari.

On September 4, 1991, the Court dismissed the petition for late
filing.

On September 11, 1991, petitioners filed a supplemental petition
assailing the DOLE’s orders for lack of jurisdiction, because labor arbiters,
not regional directors, have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
employees’ money claims exceeding P5,000.00 per employee.

On September 16, 1991, the Court reinstated the petition on the
ground that the questioned orders of Undersecretary Trajano and of the Regional
Director “may be void for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter”
in light of the ruling in Servando’s Inc. vs. Secretary
of Labor (184 SCRA 664). We required the respondents to comment on the petition and issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining the public respondents and the DOLE
Sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution. The petitioners posted a P500,000.00 surety bond to answer for any
damages which the private respondents may suffer by reason of the restraining
order should the petition eventually fail.

Petitioners also filed a motion to lift/quash the writ of
garnishment on its bank deposits. Finding merit in the motion, the Court granted it.

The central issue in this petition is whether the DOLE Regional
Director and the Undersecretary of Labor had jurisdiction over the complaint
for violation of labor standards laws where the monetary claims of each of the
private respondents exceed P5,000.00.

Private respondents’ reliance on the ruling in the Maternity
Children’s Hospital case regarding the jurisdiction of the
Regional Director in cases involving violation of labor standards laws is
misplaced. In the Maternity
case, the Court upheld proceedings before the Regional Director involving money
claims of workers because Executive Order No. 111 empowered the Regional
Directors to resolve uncontested money claims in cases where employer-employee
relationship exists. It conferred on
the Secretary of Labor, the Regional Directors, and the Labor Arbiters concurrent
jurisdiction over employees’ wages and money claims under Art. 217 of the Labor
Code.

However, Republic Act No. 6715 which took effect on March 21,
1989 (after publication in two [2] newspapers of general circulation), amended
Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code as follows:

“SEC. 2 Article 129 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

” ‘Art. 129. Recovery
of wages, simple money claims and other
benefits. – Upon [application] com­plaint of any interested party, [any]
the [r] Regional Director [office] of the
Department of Labor and Employment or any of the duly authorized hearing
officers of the department [may certify to the National Labor Relations
Commission established under this Code] 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 does not
exceed Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) [with
legal interest].’ “

“SEC. 9. Article 217
of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

” ‘ART. 217. Juris­diction
of Labor Arbiters and the Commission.
– (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, [T] the Labor Arbiters
shall have [the] original and exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and decide within thirty (30) calendar [working] days after the
submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in
the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers,
whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

“xxx                         xxx                               xxx

“(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.'” (Underscoring ours.)

The Court applied the above provisions of Republic Act No. 6715
retroactively in Briad Agro Development Corporation
vs. Dela Serna, 174 SCRA 524. Pending suits were deemed affected by the divestment of Regional
Directors of their power to hear money claims in excess of P5,000.00 (Briad
Agro Development Corporation vs. Dela Serna, Resolution of Motion for
Reconsideration, 179 SCRA 272).

In Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc.
vs. Minister of Labor and Employment,
182 SCRA 5, we ruled that the Regional Directors shall exercise jurisdiction
when the following requisites concur: (a) the claim is presented by an employee or person employed in domestic
or household service, or househelper under the Code; (b) the claimant, no
longer being employed, does not seek reinstatement; and (c) the aggregate money
claim of the employee or househelper does not exceed P5,000.00.

It was under these legal and jurisprudential milieu that Servando’s
Incorporated vs. Secretary of Labor and
Employment (184 SCRA 664) was decided. The Court upheld therein the adjudicative powers of Regional Directors
over money claims arising from employer-employee relationship when the
conditions enumerated in the Brokenshire case are present.

Hence, the petitioners correctly aver that this case falls
squarely within the ambit of the Servando ruling which the Court
reiterated in Jose Baritua vs. Secretary of Labor
and Employment, 204 SCRA 332, because: (1) the workers’ claims arose after Republic Act No. 6715 had
become effective; (2) each of the claims exceeds P5,000; (3) the claimants do
not seek reinstatement; and (4) their claims are contested by their
employer. Clearly, to the labor
arbiter, rather than the regional director, pertains the jurisdiction to hear
and decide the claims.

Private respondents’ contention that the dismissal with finality
of G.R. 98174 constituted res judicata and foreclosed the filing
of the present petition, is without merit. The petition in G.R. No. 98174 was dismissed for failure to comply with
Circular 1-88. Being a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it could be refiled within a reasonable
period by complying with the rules.

WHEREFORE, the assailed orders of January 14, 1991 and
April 1, 1991 of the Department of Labor and Employment, through Undersecretary
Cresencio B. Trajano, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The public respondents are directed to refer
the workers’ money claims to the National Labor Relations Commission for proper
determination by the appropriate Labor Arbiter. Costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Padilla, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.