G.R. No. 82607. July 12, 1990
STAR SECURITY AND DETECTIVE INVESTIGATION AGENCY, PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR, REGIONAL DIRECTOR DAVID KONG, JR. AND THELMA CUERDA, RESPONDENTS.
PARAS, J.:
On March 5, 1986, a complaint[1]
was filed by private respondent Thelma L. Cuerda
before the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. 9 in Zamboanga
City against the petitioner Star Security and Detective Investigation Agency
for underpayment of minimum wage, emergency cost of living allowance,
non-payment of 13th month pay, regular holiday pay, rest day pay and service
incentive leave pay.
On April 21, 1986,
an inspection was conducted by the Regional Office a quo on the
premises of the petitioner but the necessary documents (payrolls) as requested
by the inspecting officer were not made
available. Petitioner promised, however,
that said documents would be made available the following week. On May 26, 1986, petitioner
submitted the requested documents (payrolls), but only for the year 1985. Petitioner stated that such documents may
also be made as the basis for the year 1982 up to year 1985 salary.
Based on the submitted
documents and the respective affidavits of the petitioner and the private
respondent, the Regional Director promulgated on June 5, 1986 an order giving
due course to the aforementioned complaint and awarding to the private
respondent the sum of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Pesos (P14,280.00) representing underpayment of wages, emergency cost
of living allowance, 13th month pay, rest day pay and service incentive leave
pay.
On June 26, 1986, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
assailing the above mentioned Order on the grounds that the Regional Director
has no jurisdiction over the case and that the award made in favor of the
private respondent has no basis in law and in fact. On July 24, 1986, the Regional Director issued another Order
modifying his Order dated June 5, 1986 and ordering the petitioner to pay
complainant the sum of Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Four Pesos
and Ninety Six Centavos (P18,394.96).
On appeal to the
Secretary of Labor, the decision of the Regional Director was upheld in an order[2] dated August 5, 1987. The
motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied in an order dated
February 17, 1988. Hence, this
petition for certiorari.
The petition was given due course in this Court’s resolution
dated November 23, 1988
and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
The pivotal issue in the case at bar is whether or not the Regional Director of the
Department of Labor acted within the bounds of his jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of the complaint by private respondent below.
This Court had enumerated in the case of Brokenshire
Memorial Hospital, Inc. vs. Hon. Minister of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 74621, February 7, 1990, applying Republic Act No.
6715, the requisites before the Regional Director and other hearing officers of
the Department of Labor (aside from the Labor Arbiter) could have jurisdiction
over money claims, to wit:
1) The claim is presented by
an employee or person employed in domestic or household service, or househelper under the code;
2) The claimant, no longer
being employed, does not seek reinstatement; and
3) The aggregate money claim of the employee or househelper does not exceed five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00).
The
aforecited case likewise adopted the Separate Opinion of Mr. Justice Andres Narvasa in the case of Briad Agro
Development Corporation, as
reconsidered, G.R. No. 82805, November 9, 1989 which states:
“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 regulation 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.”
The petition is impressed with merit.
We find that the Regional Director had no jurisdiction over the
case at bar.
It can be gleaned from the complaint filed by private respondent Cuerda that she was relieved of her employment due to her expired license and as found by public
respondent Secretary of Labor, Cuerda did not seek
reinstatement but just wanted to press her claim for the benefits and separation
pay. Also, the amount involved in this
case is more than five thousand pesos (P5,000). All
these factors taken into consideration, We find that
the claims should have been filed with the labor arbiter. Restating the aforementioned Brokenshire and Briad cases
(supra), “(I)f the
relation (employer-employee) no longer exists, and the claimant does not seek
reinstatement, the case is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by the Regional
Director.”
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed orders are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The case is REFERRED, if the
private respondent is so minded, to the Labor Arbiter for proper proceeding.
SO ORDERED.
Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ.,
concur.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), J., Concurring also with the separate opinion of J. Padilla.
Padilla, J., See Separate Concurring Opinion.
[1]
Annex A, p. 12, Rollo
[2]
Annex G, p. 27, Rollo
Normal
Clean
Clean
6 pt
6 pt
0
3
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
I concur in the
result. The claim in this case falls
within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, not of the Regional Director of
the Department of Labor and Employment.
The applicable law is now Rep. Act 6715, a curative legislation. Sec. 2 thereof amending Art. 129 of the Labor
Code, as amended, provides:
“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 of the 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). x x x.”
(emphasis supplied)
Sec. 9
of RA 6715 amending Art.
217 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
“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
cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
x x x x
x x 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 x x x x x x‘”
As a consequence of the above-quoted provisions of Rep. Act 6715,
the power of the Regional Directors to hear and decide claims for recovery of
wages and other money claims is subject to the concurrence of the following
requisites: (1) the claim must arise
from employer-employee relationship; (2) the claimant does not seek
reinstatement; and (3) the aggregate money claim of each employee does not
exceed P5,000.00.
It may be emphasized then that before the Regional Director can
validly assume jurisdiction over money claims, all the aforementioned
requisites must concur. The absence of
any of said requisites is enough to bring the case outside the jurisdiction of
the Regional Director.
There is no dispute here that the amount of the claim involved is
more than P5,000.00.
It thus exceeds the jurisdictional amount provided in RA 6715 under
which the Regional Director can adjudicate money claims. This fact alone is a sufficient ground why it is the Labor Arbiter, not the
Regional Director, who has jurisdiction over this claim.