While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee exceedsP5,000.00, said provisions of law do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives. Said powers are defined and set forth in Art. 128 of the Labor Code.
FACTS:
Petitioner Allied Investigation Bureau is a security agency which entered into a security contract with Novelty Philippines Inc (NPI). Private respondents Melvin Pelayo and Samuel Sucanel, two of the security guards assigned by petitioner to NPI, filed a complaint with the Office of respondent Regional Director Romeo Young, charging petitioner with non-compliance with a wage order increasing the minimum daily pay of workers. Regional Director Young conducted inspection visits at petitioners establishment and found that Petitioner failed to implement the wage increase. Petitioner was required to effect restitution and/or correction of the foregoing within five calendar days, or challenge the findings within five working days. Thereafter, a series of conferences and hearings were scheduled by the Regional Director to facilitate amicable settlement. However, despite due notice, petitioner failed to appear in any of said hearings. As a result, the Regional Director ruled in favor of private respondents and awarded them P807,570.
Petitioners appealed the Order to respondent Secretary of Labor, without posting a cash or surety bond, as such the appeal was dismissed. Petitioner argues that the power to adjudicate money claims belongs to the Labor Arbiter who has exclusive jurisdiction over employees claims where the aggregate amount of the claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.
ISSUE: Whether or not the DOLE Regional Director acted without jurisdiction in adjudicating the private
respondents claims which were in excess of P5,000.
RULING:
Yes. While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee exceedsP5,000.00, said provisions of law do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives. Said powers are defined and set forth in Art. 128 of the Labor Code.
Art. 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.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course 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
An order issued by the duly authorized representatives 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 the employer 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.
In the case at bar, the Office of respondent Regional Director conducted inspection visits at petitioners establishment on February 9 and 14, 1995 in accordance with the above-mentioned provision of law. In the course of said inspection, several violations of the labor standard provisions of the Labor Code were discovered and reported by Senior Labor Enforcement Officer Eduvigis A. Acero in his Notice of Inspection Results. It was on the bases of the aforesaid findings (which petitioner did not contest), that respondent Regional Director issued the assailed Order for petitioner to pay private respondents the respective wage differentials due them. Clearly, as the duly authorized representative of respondent Secretary of Labor, and in the lawful exercise of the Secretary’s visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code, respondent Regional Director had jurisdiction to issue his impugned Order.
70. URBANES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR GR No. 122791 February 19, 2003
ART. 128 VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR DOCTRINE:
It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. In its complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code but seeks payment of a sum of money and damages on account of petitioner's alleged breach of its obligation under their Guard Service Contract. The action is within the realm of civil law hence jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts. While the resolution of the issue involves the application of labor laws, reference to the labor code was only for the determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the respondent where no employer-employee relation exists.
FACTS:
Petitioner Placido O. Urbanes, Jr., doing business under the name and style of Catalina Security Agency,
entered into an agreementto provide security services to respondent Social Security System (SSS). During the
effectivity of the agreement, petitioner, by letter of May 16, 1994, requested the SSS for the upward adjustment of their contract rate in view of Wage Order No. NCR-03. As SSS refused to comply, On June 29, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint with the DOLE-NCR against the SSS seeking the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-03. In its position paper, the SSS prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that petitioner is not the real party in interest and has no legal capacity to file the same. In any event, it argued that if it had any obligation, it was to the security guards. On the other hand, petitioner in his position paper, citing Eagle Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, contended that the security guards assigned to the SSS do not have any legal basis to file a complaint against it for lack of contractual privity.
Finding for petitioner, the Regional Director of the DOLE-NCR issued an Order for SSS to pay petitioner P1.6 million. SSS appealed to the Secretary of Labor, claiming that the Regional Director has no jurisdiction to issue the assailed order. The Secretary set aside the order and remanded the case. Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asserting that the Secretary of Labor does not have jurisdiction to
reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. In its complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code but seeks payment of a sum of money and damages on account of petitioner's alleged breach of its obligation under their Guard Service Contract. The action is within the realm of civil law hence jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts. While the resolution of the issue involves the application of labor laws, reference to the labor code was only for the determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the respondent where no employer-employee relation exists.
In the case at bar, even if petitioner filed the complaint on his and also on behalf of the security guards, the relief sought has to do with the enforcement of the contract between him and the SSS which was deemed amended by virtue of Wage Order No. NCR-03. The controversy subject of the case at bar is thus a civil dispute, the proper forum for the resolution of which is the civil courts.
Even if the petition was filed with the proper forum, it must still be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Under Art. 106 of the Labor Code: In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wage of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
It is only when [the] contractor pays the increases mandated that it can claim an adjustment from the principal to cover the increases payable to the security guards. The conclusion that the right of the contractor (as
principal debtor) to recover from the principal (as solidary co-debtor) arises only if he has paid the amounts for which both of them are jointly and severally liable is in line with Article 1217 of the Civil Code.
In fine, the liability of the SSS to reimburse petitioner arises only if and when petitioner pays his employee- security guards the increases mandated by Wage Order No. NCR-03.
ARTICLE 136 (now Art. 134) – Stipulation Against Marriage 71. ZIALCITA, ET AL. v. PAL
RO4-3-398-76. February 20, 1977 FACTS:
Complainant Zialcita, an international flight stewardess of PAL, was discharged from the service on account of her marriage. In separating Zialcita, PAL invoked its policy which stated that flight attendants must be single, and shall be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married. They claimed that this policy was in accordance with Article 132 of the Labor Code. On the other hand, Zialcita questioned her termination on account of her marriage, invoking Article 136 of the same law.
ISSUE: Was Zialcita validly terminated on account of her marriage? SC RULING:
NO. When Presidential Decree No. 148, otherwise known as the Women and Child Labor Law, was
promulgated in 13 March 1973, PAL’s policy had met its doom. However, since no one challenged its validity, the said policy was able to obtain a momentary reprieve. Section 8 of PD148 is exactly the same provision reproduced verbatim in Article 136 of the Labor Code, which was promulgated on 1 May 1974 and took effect six months later. Although Article 132 enjoins the Secretary of Labor to establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees and in appropriate cases shall by regulation require employers to determine appropriate minimum standards for termination in special occupations, such as those of flight attendants, it is logical to presume that, in the absence of said standards or regulations which are yet to be established, the policy of PAL against marriage is patently illegal.
Article 136 is not intended to apply only to women employed in ordinary occupations, or it should have categorically expressed so. The sweepingintendment of the law, be it on special or ordinary occupations, is reflected in the whole text and supported by Article 135 that speaks of non-discrimination on the employment of women.
72. STAR PAPER CORPORATION v. SIMBOL GR No. 164774 April 12, 2006 Puno, J.
ART. 136 OF THE LABOR CODE AND DISCRIMINATION.