G.R. No. 88538. July 25, 1991
ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; HON. LUNA C. PIEZAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS D…
PADILLA, J.:
Before the Court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
the decision rendered in the present case, dated 25 April 1990, dispositive
portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the assailed Order dated 9 February 1989 of the
respondent Undersecretary of Labor and Employment affirming the Order dated 13
October 1988 of the Regional Director is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification
that Mr. Elizardo Manuel shall be excluded from the list of complainants at bar who are entitled to
money awards of P1,884.00 each. Petition
is DISMISSED.”
In this motion for reconsideration, the principal contention of
petitioner is that inasmuch as the
aggregate amount of the claims involved in the case is P1,350,828.00,
which exceeds the P5,000.00 limit set by the law for the exercise by the Regional Director of his jurisdiction
over employees’ money claims against employers, arising from employer-employee
relations, the case should be referred to the Labor Arbiter, not the Regional
Director, for adjudication.
The Court’s recent resolution in the case of Servando’s
Incorporated vs. the Secretary of Labor and Employment (G.R. No. 85840) is
controlling in the present case, particularly on the issue of the jurisdictions
of Labor Arbiters and Regional Directors over money claims of employees against
employers. In fact, the resolution of
the present motion was deferred until after the Court En Banc had
resolved the issues in Servando’s. On 5 June 1991, the Court En Banc
promulgated its resolution in Servando’s,
which ruled that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
employee’s money claims arising from employer-employee relations exceeding the
aggregate amount of P5,000.00 for each employee, is vested
in the Labor Arbiter (Article 217([a] [6], Labor Code, as amended),[1]
and that this is confirmed by the provisions of Article 129, Labor Code, as
amended,[2]
which excludes from the jurisdiction of the Regional Director or any hearing
officer of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) the power to hear and
decide claims of employees arising from employer-employee relations exceeding
the amount of P5,000.00 for each employee.[3]
Petitioner further contends that, even if the employees’ claims
do not exceed the aggregate amount of P5,000.00 for
each employee, the respondent Regional Director can not exercise his visitorial and enforcement power granted under Article 128[4]
of the Labor Code, inasmuch as the present case falls under the “exception
clause” provided in paragraph (b) thereof, which reads:
“x x x
(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 the 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. (Underscoring ours)
x x x.”
While it is true that Article 128(b) of the Labor Code provides for the exception under which the
Regional Director may be divested of his jurisdiction over claims not exceeding
P5,000.00 for each employee, the following three (3)
elements must concur to justify such exception:
“(a) the petitioner (employer) contests
the findings of the labor regulations
officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) that in order to
resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
(c) that such matters
are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.”[5]
We do not find justification for applying said “exception
clause” in the case at bar. As held
in SSK Parts Corporation vs. Camas, supra, “although
the petitioner contested the Regional Director’s finding of violations of labor
standards committed by the petitioner, that issue was resolved by an
examination of evidentiary matters which were verifiable in the ordinary course of
inspection. Hence, there was no need to
indorse the case to the appropriate arbitration branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) for adjudication (Sec. 2, Rules Implementing
Executive Order 111).”
Petitioner reiterates its contention that the findings of fact of
the respondent public officials were not based on substantial evidence and that
there was misapprehension of facts. We
do not agree with this submission. We
find the questioned orders of the respondent public officials to be supported
by substantial evidence. As ruled in the
questioned decision, factual findings of labor officials are, generally,
conclusive and binding on this Court when supported by substantial evidence.
On the other hand, private respondent moves for a clarification
of this Court’s decision dated 25
April 1990, on whether the second paragraph of the Order of
respondent Regional Director, dated 13
October 1988 is also affirmed in the decision of this Court.[6]
The dispositive portion of the above
cited Regional Director’s Order reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Aboitiz
Shipping Corporation is hereby Ordered to pay the herein listed complainants
the total amount of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
TWENTY EIGHT and 00/100 PESOS (P1,350,828.00) representing underpayment of
daily allowance of TWO (P2.00) PESOS per day reckoned from 16 February 1982 to
15 February 1985.
FURTHER, the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation
is hereby Ordered to pay each and every one of its
employees the deficiency in allowance of two (P2.00) PESOS per day from 16 February 1985 on ward until this
Order is fully complied with.”
The dispositive part of this Court’s
decision dated 25 April 1990,
as quoted in the first paragraph of this resolution, is quite clear;
hence, no clarification thereof is needed.
ACCORDINGLY, petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration and private respondent’s motion for clarification of the
decision dated 25 April 1990
are DENIED. This denial is final.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Article 217 (a) (6) which 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 nonagricultural:
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.
xxx xxx xxx”
(emphasis supplied)
[2]
Article 129 which 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 house helper do not exceed Five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00). x x x.”
(emphasis supplied)
[3]
Note that in the present case, the Regional Director, in his Order dated
13 October 1988, found
that each of the seven hundred seventeen (717) complainants was entitled
to a uniform amount of P1,884.00.
[4]
Article 128. Visitorial and
enforcement power. – (a) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized
representatives, including labor regulation officers, shall have access to
employers records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is
being undertaken therein, and the right
to copy therefrom, to question any employee and
investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine
violations or which may aid in the enforcement of this Code and of any labor
law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.
[5]
SSK Parts Corporation vs. Camas, G.R. No. 85934, et al., 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 675
[6]
Rollo, pp. 1002-1004