RTG CONSTRUCTION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. BARTOLOME C. AMOGUIS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, DIONISIO C. DE LA SERNA, IN HIS CAPAC…

These petitions for certiorari by the petitioner, RTG
Construction, Inc., were consolidated because the parties involved are the
same.  In G.R. No. 85278, the petitioner
assails the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor
and Employment and the Undersecretary of Labor and Employment in LSED ROXI Case
No. 83-86 to grant the money claims of the private respondent, Romeo Tarroza, for salary differential, emergency cost-of-living-allowance
differential, holiday pay, 13th month pay and night shift differential on his
complaint for violation of labor standards by his
employer, the petitioner herein.

In G.R. No. 85918, the
petitioner assails the order of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
dismissing the company’s appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter in Tarroza’s complaint for illegal dismissal
(RAB-11-09-00435-87), ordering the company to reinstate him to his former
position without loss of seniority rights and with backwages
from the date of his dismissal up to his actual reinstatement.

The petitioner is a
Philippine corporation with main office in Quezon City.  It is engaged in the construction of dikes,
canals, and canal structures and was one of the contractors for various
projects of the National Irrigation Agency in Davao
del Norte.  In 1984, Tarroza
was employed as watchman in the petitioner’s shop at Malagupising,
Carmen, Davao del Norte.

On December 15, 1986, Tarroza
and thirty-three (33)
co-employees of his filed a complaint against the petitioner for alleged
violation of labor standards for minimum wage, emergency cost-of-living
allowance, holiday pay, night shift pay, and 13th month pay.  It was docketed as LSED ROXI Case No.
83-86.  Subsequently, his co-plaintiffs
withdrew their charges against their employer, leaving Tarroza
alone to pursue his complaint.

Acting on Tarroza’s complaint, the Regional Director of the DOLE
directed the Labor Standards and Welfare Office (LSWO) to conduct an inspection
of the petitioner’s premises and examine its
books.  After making such inspection, the
LSWO recommended that a summary investigation of the petitioner be made by the
Office of the Regional Director. 
According to the computation of the LSWO, the following sums were due Tarroza:

During the investigation by the Regional Director, the petitioner
offered to pay P7,000 to Tarroza
by way of compromise.  Initially, Tarroza agreed to accept that amount but he later changed
his mind and refused to compromise.

Upon a recomputation of his claims by
the Regional Director, it was found that he was entitled to receive the total
sum of P21,753.50 on his claims.

The petitioner appealed to DOLE, alleging that the Regional
Director erred in not setting off against Tarroza’s
claims his liability to the company for tools and spare parts worth P36,450.00
which were allegedly lost while in his “custody” as watchman.  The losses were discovered during an
inventory of the contents of the warehouse on February 23, 1987, or some two months after Tarroza and his co-employees had complained about the
company’s violations of labor standards.

The Undersecretary of Labor ruled that there is no law making Tarroza liable for the loss of the tools and spare parts
inside the petitioner’s shop and that, moreover, Tarroza
was not given a reasonable opportunity to refute the company’s claim for
deductions from his salaries and benefits. 
The company’s appeal was dismissed for lack of merit on May 2, 1988 (Annex L).  It elevated the matter to this Court where it
was docketed as G.R. No. 85278.

During the pendency of the labor
standards case, the company issued an order transferring Tarroza
to its shop in Tagunay, Carmen, Davao
del Norte, but Tarroza refused to comply with the
order, so he was dismissed from the service in May 1987.

On September 14, 1987,
Tarroza filed before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC a
complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement and backwages (Case No. RAB-11-09-004350-87, entitled
“Romeo Tarroza vs. RTG Construction, Inc.”).

On January 21, 1988,
a decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter declaring his dismissal illegal
and ordering the petitioner to reinstate him to his former position without
loss of seniority rights and with full backwages from
the date of his dismissal up to his actual reinstatement (Annex I).

The petitioner appealed to the NLRC which, on May 27, 1988, dismissed the appeal
“for being filed out of time.” (Annex M.)  The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter (Annex F).  After the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s
resolution was denied (Annex N), it filed this second petition for certiorari,
G.R. No. 85918.

The first petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 85278) alleges
that:

“I – THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN ADJUDICATING MONEY CLAIMS TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT, WHICH FALL
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER; AND

“II – THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS WHEN IT WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO SUBMIT THE PAYROLLS AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE
SELF-SERVING CLAIMS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT.” (p. 11, Rollo.)

In G.R. No. 85918, the petitioner alleges that the NLRC gravely
abused its discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Tarroza
with full backwages.

Both petitions have no merit.

The petition in G.R. No. 85278 assails the jurisdiction of DOLE
and of its Regional Director to pass upon Tarroza’s
claims for salary differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay and night shift
differential.  It is alleged that the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate money claims pertains to the
Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by PD 1691
effective May 1, 1980.

That argument is not well taken for ever since PD No. 850 was
issued on December 16, 1975, giving the Regional Directors not only visitorial, but enforcement powers as well, labor standards
cases have been removed from the arbitration arm (under Article 217) and transferred
to the enforcement system of the Ministry of Labor (Maternity Children’s
Hospital vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 78909, June 30, 1989).

In Maternity Children’s Hospital vs. Secretary of Labor, supra
this Court pointed out that the enforcement/adjudication authority of the
Regional Director over uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship
still exists, was confirmed and reiterated in Executive Order No. 111, dated November 26, 1986, amending Article
128 (b) of the Labor Code, as follows:

“(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 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.” (pp. 15-16, Rollo;
underscoring supplied.)

In view of Executive Order No. 111, the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of the DOLE
over Tarroza’s claims in LSED ROXI Case No. 83-86 is
unassailable.

Petitioner’s allegation that it was denied due process because it
was not allowed to present its payrolls
to refute Tarroza’s claims for differentials, is not correct.  The NLRC found that:

“x x x
respondent was given more than ample time to present its payrolls and other
documentary evidence to disprove the claims of the complainants, but it failed to do so.  Respondent’s unsubstantiated claim that the
payrolls were already forwarded to its Central Office in Manila
is no defense.  Respondent should
remember that in labor standards cases, the burden of proof rests on the
employer to show that it has not committed any violation.  In this respect, the payrolls are the best
evidence to show proof of compliance with the mandate of the law.  But, respondent chose not to present it.  Hence, we find no reason to deny complainant’s
claims in the absence of contrary proof from respondent.” (p. 56, Rollo of G.R. No. 85278.)

The employer-employee relationship having been severed by his
dismissal from the company, Tarroza’s claim for
reinstatement with backwages was properly filed
before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code.

There was no overlapping of jurisdictions between the Regional
Director and the Labor Arbiter over Tarroza’s claims
because his claims under the labor standards laws (LSED ROXI Case No. 83-86)
covered only the differentials due him from the date of his employment in the
company up to the date of his dismissal in May 1986, while his claim for
reinstatement with backwages (Case No.
RAB-11-09-00435-87) covers the period after his dismissal until he is
reinstated.  It should be clarified,
however, that his backwages shall not exceed three
(3) years.  (People’s Industrial &
Commercial Employees & Workers Org. vs. People’s Industrial &
Commercial Corp., 112 SCRA 440; Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Co. vs. Encarnacion, 136 SCRA 256; Mercury
Drug Co., Inc. vs. CIR, 56 SCRA 694.)

WHEREFORE, the
petition for certiorari is dismissed. 
As above modified, the decisions of the DOLE and NLRC are affirmed.  Costs against the
petitioner in both instances.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.