G.R. Nos. 83257-58. December 21, 1990
OSIAS ACADEMY AND MONICA R. DE CASTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, CONCHITA MERCADO, NECITAS GACIS, EVELYN B. GARAIS, ESTRELLA GATON, EVA L. CAYETAN…
PARAS, J.:
Alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, this petition for certiorari seeks the annulment of the
Order[1]
of the Department of Labor and
Employment which reversed the Order[2]
of the Regional Director dismissing the complaint for money claims filed by
herein private respondents in LRD Cases
Nos. R05-05-81
and R05-19-81 entitled “Eva Cayetano et. al., Conchita Mercado et.
al., vs. Osias Academy/Monica de Castro”.
Private respondents were the complainants in the labor case below
while petitioner Osias Academy
was the respondent.
The factual background of the case as found by the Regional
Director, Regional Office No. 5 of Legaspi
City, is as follows:
“On January 19, 1981, complainants Eva Cayetano, Susan E.
Fuellas, Julieta A. Manalo, Nela Gabelo, Teresa Belazon, Elvira B. Gacis,
Lourdes V. Correa and Teddy L. Guanizo, all members of the teaching staff of
the Osias Academy, Matnog, Sorsogon, filed complaints for
underpayment, non-payment of living allowances and the 13th month bonus against
the latter.
“Conciliation of the case (05-81) was assigned to Mrs. Emelita
S. Ongtangco who scheduled the initial conference on January 30, 1981.
xxx xxx xxx
“On July 2, 1981, complainant Eva Cayetano, x x x sent a telegram-complaint to Minister
Bias F. Ople, Ministry of Labor & Employment,
Manila requesting referral of this case to the Arbitration Branch due to the
alleged refusal of the Regional Director to refer case to the Arbitration
Branch for hearing on the merits. The
telegram was transmitted to this Office, thru the Assistant Minister, on July 6, 1981.
“In another development, four (4) new complainants filed their
complaints against the same respondent (19-81) on April 21, 1981, namely:
Conchita Mercado, for underpayment, overtime pay, violations of PD 851
and non-payment of living allowances on the differential allowances on the
matter. Complainant Estrella Gaton filed
a similar complaint against the same respondent, Necitas Gacis and Evelyn B.
Garais.
“To re-state the position taken by the herein complainants,
the common demands from their employer are:
underpayment, violation of PD 851, violation of Presidential decrees on
Cost of Living Allowance and in the case of complainant Eva Cayetano another
cause of action for non-payment of vacation and sick leave has been included.
“Going through the records of the instant cases, the
complainants’ position questioning the correctness in the computation of
salaries and wages and the economic benefits grantable by law which was arrived at in a
complaint inspection undertaken by duly assigned Labor Regulation Officers of
this Office on September 29, 1980
was made very manifest.
“The Labor Regulation Officers, after due investigation, came
to the conclusion that the respondent as of the date of inspection has been
found to have underpaid its employees including the complainants herein in the
benefits granted by PDs 1678 and 1713 in the total amount of P1,955.50 more
specifically detailed as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Exercising their authority as Labor Regulation Officers, they
ordered the respondent to pay the deficiency thru a restitution payroll which
was paid on 20 October 1980.
“From this point on, the question foremost in the mind of the
Office is: Was payment in reference to
the benefits under the Presidential issuances on Emergency Cost of Living
Allowances correct or in compliance with the applicable law?
“The records submitted by the respondent is to the effect that
the findings on ECOLA deficiency was implemented up to and including the month
of March, 1981.
“However, since the other issue raised by the complainants is the correctness of their wages, this Office
in fairness to the parties to the above entitled case and other similarly
situated employees and employers forwarded a query to the Bureau of Labor
Standards for a final and determinative opinion regarding the correct wages of
school teachers or knowledge workers who render actual service for 5-days in a
week, more specifically, from Monday thru Friday. A telegraphic answer to the query by the
Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Standards is hereby quoted in its
entirety, principally because of its authoritativeness:
“RE: YOUR QUERY WHAT GROUP PRIVATE SCHOOLS
TEACHERS FALL STOP EMPLOYEES GROUP IF DETERMINE BY NUMBER OF DAYS WORK IN A
WEEK AND WHETHER REST DAY ARE CONSIDERED PAID STOP THUS IF PRIVATE SCHOOLS
TEACHERS WORK MONDAY TO FRIDAY AND REST DAY CONSIDERED PAID THEY WOULD FALL
UNDER GROUP 3 BUT IF REST DAY
NOT CONSIDERED PAID THEY WOULD
FALL UNDER GROUP 4
STOP AND IF THEY WORK MONDAY TO SATURDAY BUT THEIR REST DAY NOT CONSIDERED PAID
THEY WOULD FALL UNDER GROUP 2. x x x
DIRECTOR
ZAPANTA”
(Rollo,
pp. 28-32)
Applying the interpretation of the Director of the Bureau of
Labor Standards, the Regional Director considered the complainants (private
respondents herein) as falling under Group IV because their restdays (Saturdays
and Sundays) are not regarded payable and are therefore governed by the
principle of “no work, no pay”.
Based on these findings, an order was issued by the Regional Director dismissing the
complaints, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
“WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the
complaints for differential pay for
13th month bonus pursuant to PD 851, the differential pay in the Cost of Living Allowance and the
underpayment of wages are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
“Consequently, the complaint for vacation and sick leave of
Eva Cayetano is likewise dismissed.
There is no law which grants vacation and sick leave with pay to
employees in the private sector. If these
employees enjoy the said benefits, it is because of a collective bargaining
agreement or by virtue of management’s generosity or policy, either of which
does not obtain in this case.
“The complaint of Conchita Mercado for overtime pay is also
dismissed for lack of merit.
“SO ORDERED.”
(Rollo, pp. 33-34).
Private respondents Conchita Mercado, Necitas Gacis, Evelyn B.
Garais, Estrella Gaton, Eva Cayetano, Teresa G. Bilazon, Susan G. Fuellas,
Elvina D. Gacis, Lourdes Correa, Julieta A. Manalo, Nila G. Gabelo and Teodoro Guanizo appealed
to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
On February 2, 1984, the Undersecretary (then Deputy Minister of Labor
and Employment) reversed the order of the Regional Director and required the
petitioner Osias Academy to pay the private respondents monetary benefits as
stated in its order, on the basis of his conclusion that complainants’ claim
for underpayment, cost of living allowances, 13th month pay and incentive leave
pay do not appear satisfied in petitioner Academy’s own payroll. Among others, the Undersecretary (then Deputy
Minister of Labor and Employment) found that complainants do not belong to the
Group IV category or daily paid employees but are monthly employees receiving
their pay every “quincena”, thus they are entitled to the statutory
benefits accorded monthly employees.
Similarly, there is no showing that complainants’ allowances under P.D.
525 and 1123 were integrated to their basic salaries in compliance with P.D.
1751.
Accordingly, the Deputy Minister ruled that complainants were
underpaid and therefore, must be paid salary differentials (Rollo, pp. 22-25,
Annex “A” of the Petition).
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration of the
aforementioned Order of the Deputy Minister on February 29, 1984 which was denied on August 2, 1985 (Rollo, p. 40 and p. 26,
respectively). On second motion for
reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 58-77), the same was likewise denied in an Order
dated January 27, 1988
(Rollo, p. 27).
Hence, this Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary
Injunction and Urgent Prayer for Restraining Order.
On May 11, 1988,
private respondents filed a “Motion for Execution” of the appealed
order of the Department of Labor and Employment but the Regional Office No. V
of the Department of Labor refused to act on the motion on the ground that Osias Academy
and Monica de Castro filed this instant petition. Moreover, petitioner had allegedly filed an
unverified “Motion to Stay Execution” before the Office of the
Secretary of Labor on May 23, 1988 but this was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in an Order
dated July 11, 1988, hence, private respondents
prayed that this Court take judicial notice of the said order
(Rollo, pp, 95-96).
After a brief exchange of pleadings by the parties, the Second Division of this Court, in a
resolution dated February 8, 1989
gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit simultaneous
memoranda (Rollo, p. 160).
Petitioners in their memorandum alleged that respondent Department of Labor and Employment acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in issuing the
disputed order of February 2, 1984 awarding salary and allowance differentials,
service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay to private respondents
considering that: (a) private
respondents’ prayer on appeal was only for the issuance of an order to require
the labor arbiter to conduct a hearing;
(b) petitioner had earlier fully satisfied
an order of the Labor Regulation Officers
on the letter-complaint of the same private respondents on the same
subject matter and cause of action; (c) the disputed order awarded wage and
ECOLA differentials contrary to law and the facts; (d) the disputed order
awarded incentive leave pay when such award was not prayed for in the complaint
and awarded 13th month pay differentials without basis and contrary to the evidence on record; and (e) the
disputed order improperly
considered petitioner Monica de Castro as respondent when she was not even named in the complaint subject
matter of the disputed order (Rollo, p. 168).
The petition is devoid of merit.
Well established is the principle that findings of administrative
agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined
to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even
finality. Judicial review by this Court
on labor cases do not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence
upon which the Deputy Minister and the Regional Director based their
determinations but are limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion (Needle Queen Corporation v. Nicolas, et al., G.R. Nos. 60741-43,
December 22, 1989; Baby Bus Inc. v. Ministry of Labor, 158 SCRA 221 [1988];
Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil Dev. Corp. v. Ministry of Labor, 146 SCRA
79 [1986]; Rosario Bros. Inc. v. Ople, 131 SCRA 72 [1984]). For certiorari to lie, there must be
capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of
the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil and common
law traditions. The abuse of discretion
must be grave and patent and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised
arbitrarily or despotically (Purefoods Corp. v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415 [1989];
Buiser v. Leogardo, Jr., 131 SCRA 151 [1984]), which is not obtaining in the
present case.
It is noteworthy that petitioners have accepted the jurisdiction
of the Regional Director by presenting their evidence and asking affirmative
relief without challenging his power to hear and try the case.
As can be gleaned from the records, this case could have been settled and disposed of easily
if all concerned had followed
the proper procedures in labor cases and all evidence and documents presented to
the barest requirements of truth and fair play. Indeed, the submission of this case to the
arbitration branch as sought by respondent complainants could have settled the
case more expeditiously and wisely, but it was petitioner
Academy which opposed the
arbitration on May 19, 1981.
Private respondents’ memorandum of appeal explicitly prayed for
“such other remedies and
benefits as may be proper under the premises.” Such general prayer
included the relief granted in the disputed order. Moreover, the award of Service Incentive
Leave pay is a statutory benefit
which cannot be denied to private respondents (See Article 95, Labor Code), the same is true with
respect to the 13th month pay since P.D. 851 states that “all employers
are required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not
more than P1,000.00 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment, a
13th month pay not later than December 24 of every year [See Sec. 1, P.D. 851;
Dentech Mfg. Corp. v. NLRC, 172 SCRA 588 [1989]) and so all the complainants
who were not paid their 13th
month pay must
be paid accordingly. And this
is what the Deputy Minister of Labor did when he ordered the award of 13th
month pay and the SIL pay.
Petitioners’ contention that its full satisfaction of private
respondents’ letter?complaint for underpayment/nonpayment
of wages, allowances and 13th month pay by virtue of an order of the labor regulation officers, constituted res judicata is
untenable. The Minister of Labor in
exercising his appellate jurisdiction over the order of the Regional Director
found that the restitution payroll was deficient and did not include the claims
for underpayment and 13th month pay of private respondents. Such appellate jurisdiction includes the
power to review the entire records of the
case and if the Secretary of Labor finds that the appealed judgment is
erroneous or deficient, it may correct said judgment.
As regards the
award of wage and ECOLA differentials, its computation and application to
private respondents are factual matters that are left to the competence and
judgment of the Ministry of Labor, it being “the qualified regulatory
agency which can determine more speedily those issues as it is expected to have acquired expertise in the ascertainment of decisive
facts, its jurisdiction being confined to specific matters” (Begoso v.
Chairman, Phil.) Vet. Adm., 32 SCRA 466 [1970]; MD Transit and Taxi Co., Inc. v.
Estrella, 99 SCRA 316 [1980]).
However, Monica de Castro who was not included as party
respondent in the complaint filed by the complainants before the Regional
Director cannot be held personally liable for whatever liability may be adjudged
against the Osias Academy. Furthermore, said Academy being a
corporation, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers or
members. This is a very basic principle
in Corporation Law.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is DISMISSED and
the appealed order is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the name of Monica
de Castro is hereby DELETED as a party for she is NOT LIABLE.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Order dated February 2, 1984
promulgated by Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr.
[2]
Order signed by Regional Director Eugenio Sagmit, Jr. dated July 20, 1981.