JOSE VILLANUEVA, SR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN DEPUTY MINISTER, MINISTRY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT (NOW DEPARTMENT), AND PEOPLE’S SECU…

This petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks the nullification of the orders dated
March 8, 1983 and February 4, 1985 of Deputy Minister of the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) Vicente Leogardo, Jr., affirming the order dated
August 6, 1981 of Regional Director Francisco L. Estrella of the National
Capital Region who dismissed the other money claims of the petitioner.

On December 22, 1980, petitioner filed a complaint against
the People’s Security, Inc., private respondent, for illegal deduction,
underpayment of overtime and emergency cost of living allowance, legal holiday
pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day pay, violation of Presidential Decree
No. 851 for the years 1977 to 1980, unpaid wages and service incentive leave
pay.

In his position paper, petitioner averred that he was employed by
the private respondent in January 1984 as a security guard. From the first day of his employ­ment, he
was made to work twelve (12) hours a day on regular days, holidays, and rest
days in violation of Arts. 87, 91, 93 and 94 of the New Labor Code, as amended,
providing for overtime pay, Legal holiday pay, and premium pay for work
performed on such number of hours and for such days. He was not paid Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA) and
illegal deductions were made by the private respondent from his salary for the
purpose of donating the same to the families of guards who died in the line of
duty and of contributing to the cash bond and/or premium of the surety bond which would answer
for any damages which a guard may incur in the performance of his duties. Finally, petitioner alleges that he was not
fully paid his 5-day service incentive leave pay in 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1980
for he received only a 4-day service incentive leave pay contrary to Art. 95 of
the New Labor Code which provides that:

“Art. 95. Right to
service incentive leave. – (a) Every employee who has
rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive
leave of five days with pay.

“(b) This provision
shall not apply to those who are already enjoying
the benefit herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least
five days and those employed in establishments regularly employing less than
ten employees or in establishments exempted from granting this benefit by the
Secretary of Labor after considering the viability or financial condition of
such establishment.

“(c) The grant of benefit
in excess of that provided herein shall not
be made a subject of arbitration
or any court of administrative action.

On February 24, 1981,
private respondent filed a position paper denying the petitioner’s claims. It alleged that all deductions from his
salary were made in accordance with law, like his Social Security contribu­tions and medicare
contributions; that he was assigned to a regular 8-hour shift but upon his own
request, he was allowed to continue working by the next shift as his
extra/regular job for the purpose of
augmenting his income even if
the next shift was supposed to be handled by another guard. Hence, he is estopped from demanding that he
be paid overtime pay for work rendered
beyond his regular 8-hour shift.

On August 6, 1981, an
order was issued by Director Francisco L. Estrella ordering the respondent:

“x x x to pay herein com­plainant the amount of FOUR HUNDRED
TWENTY-EIGHT (P428.00) PESOS, representing the amount illegally deducted, unpaid
wages and five days service incentive leave pay.

“The other money claims are dismissed for lack of
merit.” (p. 9, Rollo.)

On August 25, 1981, petitioner appealed that order to the
Minister of Labor and Employment.

On March 8, 1983, Deputy Minister Leogardo af­firmed Director
Estrella’s findings. Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the order dated February 4,
1985. Hence, this petition.

After a careful review of
the records, the Court finds no merit in the petition for review and
holds that the respondent Deputy Secretary did not gravely abuse his discretion when he dismissed the
appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the order dated August 6, 1981 of
Director Estrella. The order dated
March 8, 1983 of public respondent is duly supported by the evidence on record,
to wit:

“Be that as it may, the payrolls submitted by respondent indis­putably
show that complainant was accordingly paid of his 13th month pay, living
allowance and incentive leave pay and overtime pay (Annexes ‘B’ – ‘B-8’ and ‘C’
– ‘C-1’ Respondent). Even the pay slips
presented by complainant indicates (sic) the payment of his allowance. The contention that the legal holiday pay
and premium pay for holiday, rest day and overtime pay are already included in
the salary of complainant is supported by the evidence on record.” (p. 35,
Rollo.)

The principle is
well-established that findings of administrative agencies are generally
accorded not only respect but even
finality. Judicial review by this Court in cases does not go so far as
to require this Court to
evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the Deputy Minister and the
Regional Director based their determinations but is limited to issues of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion (Special Events & Central
Shipping Office Workers Union vs. San Miguel Corp., 122 SCRA 557).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The orders dated March 8, 1983
and February 4, 1985 of the public respondent are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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