8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

1/23

October 31, 1998

G.R. No.

, ,

vs., .

, J.:

This is a petition forcertiorari seeking a review of two (2) Orders 1 issued by the respondent Secretaryof Labor and Employment dismissing petitioner's appeal.

The case started when the Office of the Regional Director, Department of Labor and Employment(DOLE), Region I, San Fernando, La Union, received a letter-complaint dated April 25, 1995,

requesting for an investigation of petitioner's establishment, Copylandia Services & Trading, for

violation of labor standards laws. Pursuant to the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary ofLabor and Employment or his duly authorized representative under Article 128 of the Labor Code, as

amended, inspections were conducted at Copylandia's outlets on April 27 and May 2, 1995. The

inspections yielded the following violations involving twenty-one (21) employees who are copier

operators: (1) underpayment of wages; (2) underpayment of 13th month pay; and (3) no serviceincentive leave with pay. 2

The first hearing of the case was held on June 14, 1995, where petitioner was represented by JosephBotea, Officer-in-Charge of the Dagupan City outlets, while the 21 employees were represented by

Leilani Barrozo, Gemma Gales, Majestina Raymundo and Laureta Clauna. It was established that a

copier operator was receiving a daily salary ranging from P35.00 to P60.00 plus commission of P20.00per P500.00 worth of photocopying. There was also incentive pay of P20.00 per P250.00 worth of

photocopying in excess of the first P500.00. 3

On July 13, 1995, petitioner's representative submitted a Joint Affidavit signed and executed by the 21employees expressing their disinterest in prosecuting the case and their waiver and release of petitioner

from his liabilities arising from non-payment and underpayment of their salaries and other benefits.

Individually signed documents dated December 21, 1994, purporting to be the employees' Receipt,Waiver and Quitclaim were also submitted. 4

In the investigation conducted by Hearing Officer Adonis Peralta on July 21, 1995, the 21 employeesclaimed that they signed the Joint Affidavit for fear of losing their jobs. They added that their daily

salary was increased to P92.00 effective July 1, 1995, but the incentive and commission schemes were

discontinued. They alleged that they did not waive the unpaid benefits due to them. 5

On October 30, 1995, Regional Director Guerrero N. Cirilo issued an Order 6 favorable to the 21

employees. First, he ruled that the purported Receipt, Waiver and Quitclaim dated December 21 and 22,

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

2/23

1994, could not cause the dismissal of the labor standards case against the petitioner since the same

were executed before the filing of the said case. Moreover, the employees repudiated said waiver and

quitclaim. Second, he held that despite the salary increase granted by the petitioner, the daily salary of

the employees was still below the minimum daily wage rate of P119.00 under Wage Order No. RB-I-03. Thirdly, he held that the removal of the commission and incentive schemes during the pendency of

the case violated the prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the

Labor Code, as amended. The dispositive portion of the Order states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant to the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards

Cases in the Regional Offices issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment on 16 September1987, respondent Copylandia Services and Trading thru its owner/manager Mr. Francisco Guico, is

hereby ORDERED to pay the employees the amount of ONE MILLION EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND

SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX PESOS AND SEVENTY CENTAVOS (P1,081,756.70) representing

their backwages, distributed as follows:

1. Rosalina Carrera ? P 68,010.91

2. Joanna Ventura ? 28,568.10

3. Mercelita Paredes ? 68,010.91

4. Aida Licuanan ? 68,010.91

5. Gemma Gales ? 68,010.91

6. Clotilda Zarata ? 27,808.33

7. Consolacion Miguel ? 65,708.28

8. Gemma Macalalay ? 68,010.91

9. Wandy Aquino ? 19,559.58

10. Laureta Clauna ? 68,010.91

11. Josephine Valdez ? 27,808.33

12. Leilani Berrozo ? 27,808.33

13. Majestina Raymundo ? 68,010.91

14. Theresa Rosario ? 68,010.91

15. Edelyn Maramba ? 68,010.91

16. Yolly Dimabayao ? 40,380.60

17. Vilma Calaguin ? 68,010.91

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

3/23

18. Maila Balolong ? 40,380.60

19. Clarissa Villena ? 27,808.33

20. Maryann Galinato ? 68,010.91

21. Desiree Cabansag ? 27,808.33

??????

Total P1,081,756.70.

and to submit proof of payment to this Office within seven (7) day is from receipt hereof. Otherwise, a

Writ of Execution will be issued to enforce this Order.

SO ORDERED. 7

Petitioner received a copy of the Order on November 10, 1995. On November 15, 1995, petitioner fileda Notice of Appeal. 8 The next day, he filed a Memorandum of Appeal accompanied by a Motion to

Reduce Amount of Appeal Bond and a Manifestation of an Appeal Bond.

In his appeal memorandum, 9 petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Regional Director citing

Article 123 of the Labor Code, as amended, 10 and Section 1, Rule IX of the Implementing Rules of

Republic Act No. 6715. 11 He argued that the Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the complaint

of the 21 employees since their individual monetary claims exceed the P5,000.00 limit. He alleged thatthe Regional Director should have indorsed the case to the Labor Arbiter for proper adjudication and

for a more formal proceeding where there is ample opportunity for him to present evidence to contest

the claims of the employees. He further alleged that the Regional Director erred in computing themonetary award since it was done without regard to the actual number of days and time worked by the

employees. He also faulted the Regional Director for not giving credence to the Receipt, Waiver and

Quitclaim of the employees.

In the Motion to Reduce Amount of Appeal Bond, 12 petitioner claimed he was having difficulty in

raising the monetary award which he denounced as exorbitant. Pending resolution of the motion, he

posted an appeal bond in the amount of P105,000.00 insisting that the jurisdiction of the RegionalDirector is limited to claims of P5,000.00 per employee and there were 21 employees involved in the

case.

On November 22, 1995, petitioner also filed a request to hold in abeyance any action relative to the

case for a possible amicable settlement with the employees. 13

On January 10, 1996, District Labor Officer Adonis Peralta forwarded a Report showing that the

petitioner and most of the 21 employees had reached a compromise agreement. The Release, Waiver

and Quitclaim was signed by the following employees and show the following amounts they received,viz:

1. Aida Licuanan ? P 3,000.00

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

4/23

2. Clarissa Villena ? 3,000.00

3. Gemma Gales ? 3,000.00

4. Desiree Cabansag ? 3,000.00

5. Clotilda Zarata ? 3,000.00

6. Consolacion Miguel ? 5,000.00

7. Josephine Valdez ? 3,000.00

8. Maryann Galinato ? 5,000.00

9. Theresa Rosario ? 3,000.00

10. Yolly Dimabayao ? 3,000.00

11. Vilma Calaguin ? 3,000.00

12. Gemma Macalalay ? 3,000.00

13. Edelyn Maramba ? 5,000.00

14. Charito Gonzales ? 3,000.00

15. Joanna Ventura ? 3,000.00

Four (4) employees did not sign in the compromise agreement. They insisted that they be paid what isdue to them according to the Order of the Regional Director in the total amount of P231,841.06. They

were Laureta Clauna, Majestina Raymundo, Leilani Barrozo and Rosalina Carrera. 14

In a letter 15 dated February 23, 1996, the Regional Director informed petitioner that he could not give

due course to his appeal since the appeal bond of P105,000.00 fell short of the amount due to the 4

employees who did not participate in the settlement of the case. In the same letter, he directed petitioner

to post, within ten (10) days from receipt of the letter, the amount of P126,841.06 or the differencebetween the monetary award due to the 4 employees and the appeal bond previously posted.

On March 13, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration to Reduce Amount of Appeal Bond.16 He manifested that he has closed down his business operations due to severe financial losses and

implored the Regional Director to accept the appeal bond already filed for reasons of justice and equity.

In an Order dated December 3, 1936, the respondent Secretary denied the foregoing Motion for

Reconsideration on the ground that the directive from the Regional Director to post an additional surety

bond is contained in a "mere letter" which cannot be the proper subject of a Motion for Reconsiderationand/or Appeal before his office. He added that for failure of the petitioner to post the correct amount of

surety or cash bond, his appeal was not perfected following Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as

amended. Despite the non-perfection of the appeal, respondent Secretary looked into the Receipt,

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

5/23

Waiver and Quitclaim signed by the employees and rejected it on the ground that the consideration was

unconscionably inadequate. He ruled, nonetheless, that the amount received by the said employees

should be deducted from the judgment award and the difference should be paid by the petitioner.

On December 26, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On February 13, 1997, he filed a

Motion to Admit Additional Bond and posted the amount of P126,841.06 in compliance with the order

of the Regional Director in his letter dated February 13, 1996. 17

On October 24, 1997, the respondent Secretary denied the Motion for Reconsideration. He ruled that

the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case citing Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, asamended. He pointed out that Republic Act No. 7730 repealed the jurisdictional limitations imposed by

Article 129 on the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his

duly authorized representatives. In addition, he held that petitioner is now estopped from questioning

the computation made by the Regional Director as a result of the compromise agreement he enteredinto with the employees. Lastly, he reiterated his ruling that the Receipt, Waiver and Quitclaim signed

by the employees was not valid hppMpQI1.

Petitioner is now before this Court raising the following issues:

I

Whether or not Public Respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess

of jurisdiction when he set aside the Release and Quitclaim executed by the seventeen (sic)complainants before the Office of the Regional Director when Public Respondent himself ruled that the

Appeal of the Petitioner was not perfected and, therefore, Public Respondent did not acquire

jurisdiction over the case.

II

Whether or not Public Respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excessof jurisdiction when in complete disregard of Article 227 of the Labor Code, Public Respondent set

aside and nullified the Release and Quitclaim executed by the seventeen (sic) complainants.

III

Whether or not Public Respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess

of jurisdiction when he affirmed the Order of the Regional Director who, in complete disregard of thedue process requirements of law, computed the monetary award given to the private respondents

without notice to petitioner and without benefit of hearing.

IV

Whether or not petitioner is deemed estopped from appealing the decision of the Regional Directorwhen it (sic) entered into a compromise settlement with complainants/private respondents.

The threshold issues that need to be settled in this case are: (1) whether or not the Regional Directorhas jurisdiction over the instant labor standards case, and (2) whether or not petitioner perfected his

appeal.

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

6/23

With regard to the issue of jurisdiction, petitioner alleged that the Regional Director has no jurisdiction

over the instant case since the individual monetary claims of the 21 employees exceed P5,000.00. He

further argued that following Article 129 of the Labor Code, as amended, and Section 1, Rule IX of the

Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 6715, the jurisdiction over this case belongs to the LaborArbiter, and the Regional Director should have indorsed it to the appropriate regional branch of the

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On the other hand, the respondent Secretary held that

the jurisdictional limitation imposed by Article 129 on his visitorial and enforcement power underArticle 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, has been repealed by Republic Act No. 7730. 18 He

pointed out that the amendment "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of Article 129 and 217 of the Labor

Code to the contrary" erased all doubts as to the amendatory nature of the new law, and in effect,overturned this Court's ruling in the case of Servando's Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment. 19

We sustain the jurisdiction of the respondent Secretary. As the respondent correctly pointed out, this

Court's ruling in Servando ? that the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to order and enforcecompliance with labor standard laws cannot be exercised where the individual claim exceeds

P5,000.00, can no longer be applied in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 7730 amending Article

128(b) of the Labor Code, viz:

Art. 128 (b) ? Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and

in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor andEmployment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to

give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Code and other labor legislation based on the

findings of the labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in thecourse of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall 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 employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by

documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection.

An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under

this article may be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a monetary award, an appeal by theemployer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable

bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent

to the monetary award in the order appealed from. (Emphasis supplied.)

The records of the House of Representatives 20 show that Congressmen Alberto S. Veloso and Eriberto

V. Loreto sponsored the law. In his sponsorship speech, Congressman Veloso categorically declared

that "this bill seeks to do away with the jurisdictional limitations imposed through said ruling (referringto Servando) and to finally settle any lingering doubts on the visitorial and enforcement powers of the

Secretary of Labor and Employment." 21 Petitioner's reliance on Servando is thus untenable.

The next issue is whether petitioner was able to perfect his appeal to the Secretary of Labor and

Employment. Article 128(b) of the Labor Code clearly provides that the appeal bond must be "in the

amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from." The records show that petitionerfailed to post the required amount of the appeal bond. His appeal was therefore not perfected.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition forcertiorari is dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Melo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 85840 June 5, 1991

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

7/23

SERVANDO'S INCORPORATED, petitioner,vs.THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND THE REGIONALDIRECTOR REGION VI, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,

respondents.

Jose C. Filio, Jr. and Torres, Valencia, Ciocon, Dabao, Valencia & De la Paz LawOffices for petitioner.

R E S O L U T I O N

PADILLA, J.:p

This is a motion filed by the respondents seeking reconsideration of the 26 April1990 decision of the Court, which ordered the referral to the appropriate LaborArbiter of the case earlier decided by the respondents, as said case was declaredto be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, since the aggregateclaims of each of the fifty four (54) employees involved exceed the amount ofP5,000.00.

Respondents invoke the visitorial and enforcement power of the Secretary of Laborunder Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code *which, according to them, is entirely separateand distinct from the Regional Director's power to adjudicate simple money claimsunder Art. 129 of the same Code; and that Art. 217 (a) (6) of the Labor Code

granting original and exclusive jurisdiction to Labor Arbiters over all money claimsarising from employer-employee relations involving an amount exceedingP5,000.00, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, should notbe interpreted as an amendment to Art. 128(b), i.e. as providing an additionalexception to the visitorial and enforcement power of the Secretary of Labor.

There are actually three (3) provisions of the Labor Code that are determinative ofthe instant issue of jurisdiction. They are:

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 haveoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendardays after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension,even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving allworkers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

xxx xxx xxx

(6) Except claims for employees compensation, social security,

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

8/23

medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising fromemployer-employee relations, including those of persons indomestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding Fivethousand pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with aclaim for reinstatement

xxx xxx xxx

(emphasis supplied)

2. Article 129 which provides:

Art. 129. Recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits. Uponcomplaint of any interested party, the Regional Director of the Department of Laborand Employment or any of the duly authorized hearing officers of the Department isempowered, through summary proceeding and after due notice, to hear and decideany matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits,including legal interest, owing to an employee or person employed in domestic orhousehold 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 eachemployee or househelper do not exceed Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) . . .(emphasis supplied)

3. Article 128(b) which provides:

Art. 128(b) The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstandingand in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Ministerof labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the

power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with thelabor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on thefindings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the courseof inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for theenforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests thefindings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be resolvedwithout considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal courseof inspection. (Emphasis supplied)

A careful consideration of the above-quoted three (3) provisions of the Labor Codeleads the Court to reiterate its ruling that the exclusive jurisdiction to hear anddecide employees' claims arising from employer-employee relations, exceeding theaggregate amount of P5,000.00 for each employee, is vested in the Labor Arbiter(Article 217 (a) (6)). This exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter is confirmed bythe provisions of Article 129 which excludes from the jurisdiction of the Regional

Director or any hearing officer of the Department of Labor the power to hear anddecide claims of employees arising from employer-employee relations exceedingthe amount of P5,000.00 for each employee.

To construe the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to order and enforcecompliance with labor laws as including the power to hear and decide casesinvolving employees' claims for wages, arising from employer-employee relations,even ifthe amount of said claims exceed P5,000.00 for each employee, would, inour considered opinion, emasculate and render meaningless, if not useless, the

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

9/23

provisions of Article 217(a) (6) and Article 129 of the Labor Code which as above-pointed out, conferexclusive jurisdiction on the Labor Arbiter to hear and decidesuch employees' claims (exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee). To sustain therespondents' position would, in effect, sanction a situation where all employees'claims, regardless of amount, can be heard and determined by the Secretary ofLabor under his visitorial power. This does not, however, appear to be the

legislative intent.

We further hold that to harmonize the above-quoted three (3) provisions of theLabor Code, the Secretary of Labor should be held as possessed of his plenaryvisitorial powers to order the inspection of all establishments where labor isemployed, to look into all possible violations of labor laws and regulations but thepower to hear and decide employees' claims exceeding P5,000.00 for eachemployee should be left to the Labor Arbiter as the exclusive repository of thepower to hear and decide such claims. In other words, the inspection conducted bythe Secretary of Labor, through labor regulation officers or industrial safetyengineers, may yield findings of violations through labor standards under laborlaws; the Secretary of Labor may order compliance with said labor standards, ifnecessary, through appropriate writs of execution but when the findings disclose anemployee claim of over P5,000.00, the matter should be referred to the LaborArbiter in recognition of his exclusive jurisdiction over such claims.

Nor is this position devoid of sound reason or purpose, because

1. The proceedings before the Secretary of Labor (or his agents) exercising hisvisitorial powers is summary in nature. On the other hand, proceedings before theLabor Arbiters are more formal and in accord with rules of evidence. When theemployee's claim is less than P5,000.00, a summary procedure for its settlementcan be justified, but not when a claim is more or less substantial, from thestandpoint of both employee and management, for which reason, an employee'sclaim exceeding P5,000.00 is placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LaborArbiter to hear and decide.

2. Article 129 of the Labor Code expressly provides that "upon complaint of anyinterested party,"the Regional Director (and, consequently, the Secretary of Laborto whom appeals from the Regional Director are taken) is empowered to hear anddecide simple money claims, i.e. those that do not exceed P5,000.00 for eachemployee, employing for this purpose a summary procedure. If Article 128 (b) ofthe Labor Code were to be construed as empowering the Secretary of Labor, underhis visitorial power, to hear and decide all types of employee's claims, includingthose exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee, employing for this purpose asummary procedure, then, Article 129 (limiting the Regional Directors jurisdiction toa claim not exceeding P5,000.00) becomes a useless surplusage in the LaborCode.

3. Besides, it would seem that as the law (Article 129) limits the jurisdiction of theRegional Director (and, therefore, the Secretary of Labor on appeal from theRegional Director) to "complaints of any interested party" seeking an amount of notmore than P5,000.00, for each employee, it cannot be that, because of the

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

10/23

absence of any complaint from any interested party, the Secretary of Labor underhis visitorial power, is motu proprio empowered to hear and decide employee'sclaim of more than P5,000.00 for each employee.

In addition to all the foregoing, the Court cannot overlook the fact that petitionercontests the findings of the labor regulation officer, upon which, the respondents

based their questioned orders. Nor can it be argued with persuasion that the issuesraised by petitioner are not evidentiary in nature and unverifiable in the course ofinspection. Moreover, the total amount of the respondents' award againstpetitioner, is P964,952.50 (with the award for each of the fifty four (54) employeesinvolved not being less than P5,000.00). The total award of P964,952.50 is a tidysum sufficient to knock-off any viable enterprise. What is worse is that all this isdone through summary proceedings.

The elementary demands ofdue process upon which the express exception to the

visitorial powers of the Secretary of Labor 1 is obviously anchored, would requiresomething more than a summary disposition. As petitioner states in his comment

on respondents' motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision:

. . . the petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration on July 8, 1987, asking for anopportunity to present its payrolls and records, considering that the computationarrived at by the Regional Director is a straight computation that did not take intoaccount the actual number of days worked, the status of the employees, theabsences incurred, the advances obtained, the allowances given, among otherfactors.

The very fact that the petitioner has come before the Supreme Court in the instantpetition for certiorari clearly shows that it contests the findings of the RegionalDirector. Otherwise, everything would have been, if the stand of the PublicRespondents were to be believed, an exercise in futility.

Lastly, it is undeniable that the issues involved here are matters that (are)evidentiary in nature, involving as it does matters that cannot be resolved and arenot verifiable in the normal course of inspection. Indeed, it is only through a properhearing before the Labor Arbiter where it may be discovered which workers areentitled to the alleged wage differentials, if any, and for how much. Without this, thepetitioner would not be able to prove the correctness of the amounts given to theworkers concerned after taking into account extraneous factors such as absences,attendance, advances and so on.

ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. This denial is final.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Bidin, Sarmiento, Grio-Aquino, Regaladoand Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

11/23

Separate Opinions

NARVASA, J., dissenting:

I regret to have to dissent.

The facts which gave rise to the special civil action of certiorari at bar are fairlysimple. A routine inspection of petitioner's establishment was conducted by officersof the Labor Standards and Welfare Office, DOLE, resulting in the discovery of"violations of labor standards/occupational health and safety measures." Thepetitioner was apprised thereof, and subsequently required to present its payrollsand daily time records before the Regional Director with the warning that its failureto do so would be deemed a waiver of its right to present evidence. Petitioner

ignored the warning. It did not present its records or any evidence. The RegionalDirector then issued an Order requiring the petitioner to pay 54 of its employees"differentials in wages and allowances" in the aggregate amount of P964,952.50,as well as to clear the passageway of its warehouse of waste material and to installfire extinguishers in accordance with "occupational safety and health rules."Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the latteraffirmed the Regional Director's orders. Petitioner filed the special civil action ofcertiorariat bar, raising the sole issue of "whether or not the Regional Director hasthe jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving recovery of wages and othermonetary claims and benefits of workers and employees." By judgmentpromulgated on April 26, 1990, the Second Division granted the petition, declared

the Regional Director to be without jurisdiction over the case and directed that it bereferred "to the appropriate Labor Arbiter for proper determination." Petitioner fileda motion for reconsideration. It is this motion which the Court is now called upon toresolve.

It may initially be pointed out, parenthetically, that the referral thus decreed resultsin that splitting of jurisdiction, which the law seeks to avoid: the Regional Directorretaining cognizance over the matter of the waste material and the installation offire extinguishers in the employer's premises, and the Labor Arbiter assuming

jurisdiction of the "differentials in wages and allowances" in the total sum ofP964,952.50 due the employees, in respect of which the employer was deemed to

have waived the light to present countervailing evidence in the first place. 1

The fundamental issue which this opinion addresses concerns the interpretation ofArticle 128 dealing with the "visitorial and enforcement power"of the RegionalDirectors as "authorized representatives" of the Secretary of Labor in relation to:

Article 129, treating of the same Regional Directors' adjudicative or quasi-judicialauthority, i.e. their power under certain conditions to take cognizance of andadjudicate complaints involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claimsand benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or person employed in

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

12/23

domestic or household service; and

Article 217, defining the cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction ofLabor Arbiters.

Both Articles 217 and 129

1) deal withjurisdiction, in the sense of the authority to try and decide a case, orhear and determine a cause; 2

2) referinter alia to complaints involving the recovery of wages and other monetaryclaims and benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or personemployed in domestic or household service or househelper; and

3) prescribe an appeal from the decision rendered under either provision to theNational Labor Relations Commission.

There is withal no concurrence, or overlapping of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of theLabor Arbiter over matters involving recovery of wages and other monetary claimsunder Article 217 is limited to those cases involving an amount exceeding P5,000,"regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement." On the otherhand, the Regional Directors' jurisdiction extends only to those cases for recoveryof wages and other monetary claims and benefits, where (a) the complaint doesnot include a claim for reinstatement, and (b) the aggregate money claims of eachemployee or househelperdo not exceed P5,000.00.

The question that now arises is whether this limitation on the adjudicatory authorityor jurisdiction of the Regional Directors i.e., that the money claim of each

employee or householder should not exceed P5,000.00 also applies to andoperates to limit as well the visitorial and enforcement power of said RegionalDirectors described in Article 128.

I submit that it does not. The matter has already been passed upon and squarelyresolved by the Court en bancin its decision rendered on February 7, 1990 in G.R.No. 74621 entitled "Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Hon. Minister of Labor &Employment et al. 3 That judgment inter alia adopted the view expressed in the

"Separate Opinion in the case of Briad Agro Dev. Corp., 4 as reconsidered, aportion of which reads:

In the resolution, therefore, of any question of jurisdiction over a money claimarising from employer-employee relations, the first inquiry should be into whetherthe employment relation does indeed still exist between the claimant and therespondent.

If the relation no longer exists, and the claimant does not seek reinstatement, thecase is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by the Regional Director. On the otherhand, if the employment relation still exists, or reinstatement is sought, the nextinquiry should be into the amount involved.

If the amount involved does not exceed P5,000.00, the Regional Director

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

13/23

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'scompetence. In respect thereof, he may still exercise the visitorial and enforcementpowers vested in him by Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, supra; that isto say, he may still direct his labor regulations officers or industrial safety engineersto inspect the employer's premises and examine his records; and if the officersshould find that there have been violations of labor standards provisions, theRegional Director may, after due notice and hearing, order compliance by the

employer therewith and issue a writ of execution to the appropriate authority for theenforcement thereof. However, this power may not, to repeat, be exercised by himwhere the employer contests the labor regulation officers' findings and raises issueswhich cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable inthe normal course of inspection. In such an event, the case will have to be referredto the corresponding Labor Arbiter for adjudication, since it falls within the latter'sexclusive original jurisdiction.

The question was also posed and again resolved in the judgment of the Court enbanc in Maternity Children's Hospital v. the Secretary of Labor, promulgated on

June 30, 1989.5This judgment sustained the authority of the Regional Director tocommand enforcement of money claims pursuant to his enforcement and visitorial

powers. It declared that Executive Order No. 111 "merely confirms/reiterates theenforcement/adjudication authority of the Regional Director over uncontestedmoney claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists," andthat "it has always been the intention of our labor authorities to provide our workersimmediate access (when still feasible, as where an employer-employeerelationship still exists) to their rights and benefits, without being inconvenienced byarbitration/litigation processes that prove to be not only nerve-wracking, butfinancially burdensome in the long run. 6

The separate concurring opinion 7pointed out, citingSection 2 of R.A. No. 6715,that in addition to their visitorial powers, "Regional Directors have also been

granted adjudicative powers, albeit limited, over monetary claims and benefits ofworkers, thereby settling any ambiguity on the matter."

I do not think we should overrule these precedents. It seems to me evident that, asthe above cited rulings state, the power conferred by Article 128 on the RegionalDirectors, as authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor, is quite distinctfrom that granted to them by Article 129. Article 128 clearly refers to the RegionalDirectors' "visitorial and enforcement power," whereas Article 129, as alreadypointed out, treats of what Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera describes as their"limited adjudicative power," i.e., their authority to hear and determine complaintsfor recovery of wages and other monetary benefits.

The Directors' visitorial and enforcementpower includes the authority

1) to inspect an employer's premises and records to aid in enforcement of theLabor Code or determine violations of any labor law, wage order or rules andregulations issued pursuant thereto;

2) in the event that the findings of labor regulation officers disclose such violationsentailing, e.g., payment of monetary benefits to employees to order and

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

14/23

administer such payment, after due notice and hearing, and to issue writs ofexecution to the appropriate authority for enforcement of orders of payment.

It is noteworthy that the Regional Directors' power to order and administer, afterdue notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of thisCode 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 writsof execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders isconferred on them by Article 128 "(t)he Provisions of Article 217. . to the contrarynotwithstanding." what Article 128 is plainly saying is that although the power ofcompulsory arbitration over violations of the Labor Code and other labor legislation including payment of wages and other pecuniary benefits amounting to morethan P5,000.00 for each employee is lodged by Article 217 in Labor Arbiters,and not in Regional Directors, the Regional Directors may nevertheless wield theauthority to order "compliance with the labor standards provisions of . . (the) Codeand other labor legislation" and issue execution in that connection, throughproceedings more summary than those before Labor Arbiters.

The "clear purpose" of the law in extending such a power on the Regional Directorsis, according to Policy Instructions No. 7 of the Department of Labor andEmployment, to take labor standards cases from the arbitration system and placethem under the enforcement system and in this way, "assure the worker the rightsand benefits due to him under labor standard laws without having to go througharbitration . . (for) the workerneed not litigate to get what legally belongs to him . .(and the) whole enforcement machinery of the Department of Labor exists to insureits expeditious delivery to him free of charge."

Also worthy of note is that as regards this power granted to Regional Directors bysaid Article 128 to issue orders requiring compliance with labor laws, rules andregulations for the payment of money or otherwise, and cause execution thereof only two (2) limitations can be found in the text of the article.

The first is where the employer

1) "contests the findings of the labor regulation officer," and

2) "raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary mattersthat are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

In such an event, of course, execution may not issue. Jurisdiction to resolve theissues thus raised passes to the proper Labor Arbiter.

The second limitation is where the relationship of employer-employee no longerexists, in which cases the Regional Directors cease to have jurisdiction to ordercompliance with the Code or other labor legislation.

Apart from these, no other limitation, particularly as to the amount of the pecuniarybenefits declared to be due and owing to employees, is found in Article 128. On the

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

15/23

contrary, as already discussed, notwithstanding that the Labor Arbiters haveexclusive original jurisdiction under Article 217 to hear and determine casesinvolving recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits in an amountexceedingP5,000.00 for each complainant employee, the Regional Directors areaccorded the authority, to repeat, to order "compliance with the labor standardsprovisions of . . (the) Code and other labor legislation" and issue execution in

connection therewith.

Besides the visitorial and enforcement powergiven to Regional Directors by Article128, they (or any authorized hearing officer) have also been granted by Article 129,as already indicated, quasi-judicial or adjudicatory authority to try and decide,through summary proceeding and after due notice, complaints involving therecovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits arising from employer-employee relations: Provided, That such complaint does not include a claim forreinstatement, and Provided further, that the aggregate of the money claims ofeach employee or househelper does not exceed P5,000.00.

Now, obviously, the law envisions the situation in Article 129 to be quite distinctfrom that in Article 128, The formulation of two separate articles dealing with oneand the same situation would otherwise make no sense. The first refers toinspections conducted by authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor orRegional Director, including labor regulations officers, which result in theunearthing of the failure of an employer to comply with labor standards provisionsof the Labor Code or other labor legislation. The second situation refers tocomplaints filed by employees or persons employed in domestic or householdservice for the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits,including legal interest, which the Regional Directors may try and decide unless theemployment relationship no longer exists or the amount claimed for eachcomplainant exceeds P5,000.00. In this second situation, obviously, what isinvoked and involved is not the visitorial or enforcement power, but the limitedadjudicatory or quasi-judicial power, of the Regional Directors. The situations beingdissimilar, their regulation and governance are, as they should be, also different, asalready above indicated.

To interpret Article 128 as subject to the same limited coverage as Article 129, or,therefore, applicable only to claims not in excess of P5,000.00, is not justified bythe text of those provisions. It would result in undue construction of the rule laiddown for the benefit of employees and laborers; require the latter, contrary to thelaw's "clear purpose" stated in Policy Instructions No. 7, to litigate, go througharbitration, to obtain that to which they are clearly entitled and which they ought tohave expeditiously and free of charge. Such an interpretation would allow anemployer, disclosed as having violated labor standards prescribed by law, bypleading lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Director because theamount due the affected employee exceeds P5,000.00, to delay enforcement of aclear liability against which he has no meritorious defense. It would significantlyemasculate a provision intended to borrow again from the language of PolicyInstructions No. 7 to make the Regional Office "perform its real function: act asa strategic checkpoint against labor standards cases maturing into arbitration.

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

16/23

It also bears repeating that the exclusionary phrase, "the provisions of Article 217of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding," with which Article 128(b) prefaces itsconferment upon the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorizedrepresentatives of the powers therein specified is of so plain and unambiguous ameaning as to warrant only one conclusion: that quite apart from the fact that bothprovisions deal with distinct and distinguishable powers, the grant in Article 217 to

the Labor Arbiters of original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims in excess ofP5,000.00 arising from employer-employee relations, does not operate to oustRegional Directors of their visitorial and enforcement powers vis-a-vis laborstandards infractions also involving amounts exceeding such sum. A contraryreading would do violence to the language of said phrase and render it entirelymeaningless.

Application of the P5,000-limitation to the visitorial or enforcement powers ofRegional Directors may even lead to absurd results. For instance, the RegionalDirector will be deemed to be validly exercising visitorial enforcement power in asituation where each of 100 employees is found to be entitled to monetary benefitsamounting to an average of P4,990.00 (a total of P499,000.00), but not where, say,10 employees are each found entitled to P5,005.00 (a total of only P50,050.00).Also incongruous is the situation where say, 50 of 100 employees are found tohave a right to benefits amounting to P4,990.00, and the other 50, to P5,005.00. Inthe latter case, the case would have to be referred to the Labor Arbiter insofar asits affects the 50 employees to each of whom monetary benefits of P5,005.00 aredue; this would bring about a splitting of jurisdiction, since the case would stillremain with the Regional Director as regards the 50 workers entitled to not morethan P5,000.00 each. 8 And all these things may come to pass even if theemployer, as in the case at bar, fails to contest the findings of the labor regulationsinspectors or otherwise presents no justifiable excuse for the discovered violationsof labor standards laws.

I therefore vote to GRANT reconsideration.

Fernan, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

NARVASA, J., dissenting:

I regret to have to dissent.

The facts which gave rise to the special civil action of certiorari at bar are fairlysimple. A routine inspection of petitioner's establishment was conducted by officersof the Labor Standards and Welfare Office, DOLE, resulting in the discovery of"violations of labor standards/occupational health and safety measures." Thepetitioner was apprised thereof, and subsequently required to present its payrollsand daily time records before the Regional Director with the warning that its failure

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

17/23

to do so would be deemed a waiver of its right to present evidence. Petitionerignored the warning. It did not present its records or any evidence. The RegionalDirector then issued an Order requiring the petitioner to pay 54 of its employees"differentials in wages and allowances" in the aggregate amount of P964,952.50,as well as to clear the passageway of its warehouse of waste material and to installfire extinguishers in accordance with "occupational safety and health rules."

Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the latteraffirmed the Regional Director's orders. Petitioner filed the special civil action ofcertiorariat bar, raising the sole issue of "whether or not the Regional Director hasthe jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving recovery of wages and othermonetary claims and benefits of workers and employees." By judgmentpromulgated on April 26, 1990, the Second Division granted the petition, declaredthe Regional Director to be without jurisdiction over the case and directed that it bereferred "to the appropriate Labor Arbiter for proper determination." Petitioner fileda motion for reconsideration. It is this motion which the Court is now called upon toresolve.

It may initially be pointed out, parenthetically, that the referral thus decreed resultsin that splitting of jurisdiction, which the law seeks to avoid: the Regional Directorretaining cognizance over the matter of the waste material and the installation offire extinguishers in the employer's premises, and the Labor Arbiter assuming

jurisdiction of the "differentials in wages and allowances" in the total sum ofP964,952.50 due the employees, in respect of which the employer was deemed tohave waived the light to present countervailing evidence in the first place. 1

The fundamental issue which this opinion addresses concerns the interpretation ofArticle 128 dealing with the "visitorial and enforcement power"of the RegionalDirectors as "authorized representatives" of the Secretary of Labor in relation to:

Article 129, treating of the same Regional Directors' adjudicative or quasi-judicialauthority, i.e. their power under certain conditions to take cognizance of andadjudicate complaints involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claimsand benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or person employed indomestic or household service; and

Article 217, defining the cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction ofLabor Arbiters.

Both Articles 217 and 129

1) deal withjurisdiction, in the sense of the authority to try and decide a case, orhear and determine a cause; 2

2) referinter alia to complaints involving the recovery of wages and other monetaryclaims and benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or personemployed in domestic or household service or househelper; and

3) prescribe an appeal from the decision rendered under either provision to theNational Labor Relations Commission.

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

18/23

There is withal no concurrence, or overlapping of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of theLabor Arbiter over matters involving recovery of wages and other monetary claimsunder Article 217 is limited to those cases involving an amount exceeding P5,000,"regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement." On the otherhand, the Regional Directors' jurisdiction extends only to those cases for recoveryof wages and other monetary claims and benefits, where (a) the complaint does

not include a claim for reinstatement, and (b) the aggregate money claims of eachemployee or househelperdo not exceed P5,000.00.

The question that now arises is whether this limitation on the adjudicatory authorityor jurisdiction of the Regional Directors i.e., that the money claim of eachemployee or householder should not exceed P5,000.00 also applies to andoperates to limit as well the visitorial and enforcement power of said RegionalDirectors described in Article 128.

I submit that it does not. The matter has already been passed upon and squarelyresolved by the Court en bancin its decision rendered on February 7, 1990 in G.R.

No. 74621 entitled "Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Hon. Minister of Labor &Employment et al. 3 That judgment inter alia adopted the view expressed in the

"Separate Opinion in the case of Briad Agro Dev. Corp., 4 as reconsidered, aportion of which reads:

In the resolution, therefore, of any question of jurisdiction over a money claimarising from employer-employee relations, the first inquiry should be into whetherthe employment relation does indeed still exist between the claimant and therespondent.

If the relation no longer exists, and the claimant does not seek reinstatement, thecase is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by the Regional Director. On the otherhand, if the employment relation still exists, or reinstatement is sought, the nextinquiry should be into the amount involved.

If the amount involved does not exceed P5,000.00, the Regional Directorundeniably 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'scompetence. In respect thereof, he may still exercise the visitorial and enforcementpowers vested in him by Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, supra; that isto say, he may still direct his labor regulations officers or industrial safety engineersto inspect the employer's premises and examine his records; and if the officersshould find that there have been violations of labor standards provisions, theRegional Director may, after due notice and hearing, order compliance by theemployer therewith and issue a writ of execution to the appropriate authority for theenforcement thereof. However, this power may not, to repeat, be exercised by himwhere the employer contests the labor regulation officers' findings and raises issueswhich cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable inthe normal course of inspection. In such an event, the case will have to be referredto the corresponding Labor Arbiter for adjudication, since it falls within the latter'sexclusive original jurisdiction.

The question was also posed and again resolved in the judgment of the Court enbanc in Maternity Children's Hospital v. the Secretary of Labor, promulgated on

June 30, 1989.5This judgment sustained the authority of the Regional Director to

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

19/23

command enforcement of money claims pursuant to his enforcement and visitorialpowers. It declared that Executive Order No. 111 "merely confirms/reiterates theenforcement/adjudication authority of the Regional Director over uncontestedmoney claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists," andthat "it has always been the intention of our labor authorities to provide our workersimmediate access (when still feasible, as where an employer-employee

relationship still exists) to their rights and benefits, without being inconvenienced byarbitration/litigation processes that prove to be not only nerve-wracking, butfinancially burdensome in the long run. 6

The separate concurring opinion 7pointed out, citingSection 2 of R.A. No. 6715,that in addition to their visitorial powers, "Regional Directors have also beengranted adjudicative powers, albeit limited, over monetary claims and benefits ofworkers, thereby settling any ambiguity on the matter."

I do not think we should overrule these precedents. It seems to me evident that, asthe above cited rulings state, the power conferred by Article 128 on the Regional

Directors, as authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor, is quite distinctfrom that granted to them by Article 129. Article 128 clearly refers to the RegionalDirectors' "visitorial and enforcement power," whereas Article 129, as alreadypointed out, treats of what Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera describes as their"limited adjudicative power," i.e., their authority to hear and determine complaintsfor recovery of wages and other monetary benefits.

The Directors' visitorial and enforcementpower includes the authority

1) to inspect an employer's premises and records to aid in enforcement of theLabor Code or determine violations of any labor law, wage order or rules andregulations issued pursuant thereto;

2) in the event that the findings of labor regulation officers disclose such violationsentailing, e.g., payment of monetary benefits to employees to order andadminister such payment, after due notice and hearing, and to issue writs ofexecution to the appropriate authority for enforcement of orders of payment.

It is noteworthy that the Regional Directors' power to order and administer, afterdue notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of thisCode and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor regulation officersor industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writsof execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders isconferred on them by Article 128 "(t)he Provisions of Article 217. . to the contrarynotwithstanding." what Article 128 is plainly saying is that although the power ofcompulsory arbitration over violations of the Labor Code and other labor legislation including payment of wages and other pecuniary benefits amounting to morethan P5,000.00 for each employee is lodged by Article 217 in Labor Arbiters,and not in Regional Directors, the Regional Directors may nevertheless wield theauthority to order "compliance with the labor standards provisions of . . (the) Codeand other labor legislation" and issue execution in that connection, throughproceedings more summary than those before Labor Arbiters.

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

20/23

The "clear purpose" of the law in extending such a power on the Regional Directorsis, according to Policy Instructions No. 7 of the Department of Labor andEmployment, to take labor standards cases from the arbitration system and placethem under the enforcement system and in this way, "assure the worker the rightsand benefits due to him under labor standard laws without having to go througharbitration . . (for) the workerneed not litigate to get what legally belongs to him . .

(and the) whole enforcement machinery of the Department of Labor exists to insureits expeditious delivery to him free of charge."

Also worthy of note is that as regards this power granted to Regional Directors bysaid Article 128 to issue orders requiring compliance with labor laws, rules andregulations for the payment of money or otherwise, and cause execution thereof only two (2) limitations can be found in the text of the article.

The first is where the employer

1) "contests the findings of the labor regulation officer," and

2) "raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary mattersthat are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

In such an event, of course, execution may not issue. Jurisdiction to resolve theissues thus raised passes to the proper Labor Arbiter.

The second limitation is where the relationship of employer-employee no longerexists, in which cases the Regional Directors cease to have jurisdiction to ordercompliance with the Code or other labor legislation.

Apart from these, no other limitation, particularly as to the amount of the pecuniarybenefits declared to be due and owing to employees, is found in Article 128. On thecontrary, as already discussed, notwithstanding that the Labor Arbiters haveexclusive original jurisdiction under Article 217 to hear and determine casesinvolving recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits in an amountexceedingP5,000.00 for each complainant employee, the Regional Directors areaccorded the authority, to repeat, to order "compliance with the labor standardsprovisions of . . (the) Code and other labor legislation" and issue execution inconnection therewith.

Besides the visitorial and enforcement powergiven to Regional Directors by Article

128, they (or any authorized hearing officer) have also been granted by Article 129,as already indicated, quasi-judicial or adjudicatory authority to try and decide,through summary proceeding and after due notice, complaints involving therecovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits arising from employer-employee relations: Provided, That such complaint does not include a claim forreinstatement, and Provided further, that the aggregate of the money claims ofeach employee or househelper does not exceed P5,000.00.

Now, obviously, the law envisions the situation in Article 129 to be quite distinct

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

21/23

from that in Article 128, The formulation of two separate articles dealing with oneand the same situation would otherwise make no sense. The first refers toinspections conducted by authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor orRegional Director, including labor regulations officers, which result in theunearthing of the failure of an employer to comply with labor standards provisionsof the Labor Code or other labor legislation. The second situation refers to

complaints filed by employees or persons employed in domestic or householdservice for the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits,including legal interest, which the Regional Directors may try and decide unless theemployment relationship no longer exists or the amount claimed for eachcomplainant exceeds P5,000.00. In this second situation, obviously, what isinvoked and involved is not the visitorial or enforcement power, but the limitedadjudicatory or quasi-judicial power, of the Regional Directors. The situations beingdissimilar, their regulation and governance are, as they should be, also different, asalready above indicated.

To interpret Article 128 as subject to the same limited coverage as Article 129, or,therefore, applicable only to claims not in excess of P5,000.00, is not justified bythe text of those provisions. It would result in undue construction of the rule laiddown for the benefit of employees and laborers; require the latter, contrary to thelaw's "clear purpose" stated in Policy Instructions No. 7, to litigate, go througharbitration, to obtain that to which they are clearly entitled and which they ought tohave expeditiously and free of charge. Such an interpretation would allow anemployer, disclosed as having violated labor standards prescribed by law, bypleading lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Director because theamount due the affected employee exceeds P5,000.00, to delay enforcement of aclear liability against which he has no meritorious defense. It would significantlyemasculate a provision intended to borrow again from the language of PolicyInstructions No. 7 to make the Regional Office "perform its real function: act asa strategic checkpoint against labor standards cases maturing into arbitration.

It also bears repeating that the exclusionary phrase, "the provisions of Article 217of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding," with which Article 128(b) prefaces itsconferment upon the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorizedrepresentatives of the powers therein specified is of so plain and unambiguous ameaning as to warrant only one conclusion: that quite apart from the fact that bothprovisions deal with distinct and distinguishable powers, the grant in Article 217 tothe Labor Arbiters of original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims in excess ofP5,000.00 arising from employer-employee relations, does not operate to oustRegional Directors of their visitorial and enforcement powers vis-a-vis laborstandards infractions also involving amounts exceeding such sum. A contraryreading would do violence to the language of said phrase and render it entirelymeaningless.

Application of the P5,000-limitation to the visitorial or enforcement powers ofRegional Directors may even lead to absurd results. For instance, the RegionalDirector will be deemed to be validly exercising visitorial enforcement power in asituation where each of 100 employees is found to be entitled to monetary benefitsamounting to an average of P4,990.00 (a total of P499,000.00), but not where, say,

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

22/23

10 employees are each found entitled to P5,005.00 (a total of only P50,050.00).Also incongruous is the situation where say, 50 of 100 employees are found tohave a right to benefits amounting to P4,990.00, and the other 50, to P5,005.00. Inthe latter case, the case would have to be referred to the Labor Arbiter insofar asits affects the 50 employees to each of whom monetary benefits of P5,005.00 aredue; this would bring about a splitting of jurisdiction, since the case would still

remain with the Regional Director as regards the 50 workers entitled to not morethan P5,000.00 each. 8 And all these things may come to pass even if theemployer, as in the case at bar, fails to contest the findings of the labor regulationsinspectors or otherwise presents no justifiable excuse for the discovered violationsof labor standards laws.

I therefore vote to GRANT reconsideration.

Fernan, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* P.D. 442, as amended.

1 The visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor is subject to this limitation, alsoprovided under Article 128(b)

. . ., except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the laborregulation officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without consideringevidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

NARVASA DISSENTING

1 See footnote 8, p. 5, infra.

2 Herrera v. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245, 251, cited in Feria, Civil Procedure, 1969 ed., p.15; Century Insurance Co. v. Fuentes, 2 SCRA 1168, cited in Herrera, RemedialLaw, 1990 ed., Vol. 1, p. 15; Moran, Comments on the Rules, 1979 ed., Vol. 1, p.51, citingHerrera v. Barreto, supra; Conchada v. Director of Prisons, 31 Phil. 94;U.S. V. Limsiongco, 41 Phil. 94; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254.

3 182 SCRA 5-15, per Paras, J.

4 G.R. No. 82805 (Briad Agro Development Corporation v. Hon. Dionisio delaCerna, etc., et al); G.R. No. 83255 (L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation v. Hon.Secretary of Labor, et al.): Decision promulgated on June 29, 1989 (with a separate

concurring opinion of Narvasa, J., with whom concurred Fernan, C.J., andGutierrez, Jr. and Cruz, JJ.), reported in 174 SCRA 524-549; SEEalso Resolutiongranting reconsideration, promulgated Nov. 9, 1989 (with a Separate Opinion byNarvasa, J., with whom concurred Fernan, C.J. and Feliciano, J.)

5 174 SCRA 632-652, per Medialdea, J.

6 SEE, also, Resolution of the Third Division, March 7, 1990 in G.R. No. 89019(Luzon Colleges, Inc. et al. v. Hon. Dionisio C. Dela Serna, etc., et al.) whereseparate complaints for violation of labor standard laws filed with the NLRC Arbiters'Office, were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and referred to the Regional Director

8/4/2019 Art128 PD442 Cases

23/23

who subsequently found that there was underpayment of wages and emergencycost of living allowance: the Court's Third Division refused certiorarisought by theemployer to annul that disposition.

7 By Mme. Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, at p. 652.

8 See footnote 1, at p. 1, supra.