THIRD
DIVISION
|
V.L. ENTERPRISES and/or FAUSTINO J.
VISITACION,
Petitioners, - versus
- HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SHERIFF WILLY
GABITO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) and CAMILO FRANCISCO, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 167512 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a Petition
for Annulment of Judgment, Writ of Execution and Notice of Sale on Execution,
relating to the following Orders:
1.
Resolutions dated
2.
Order dated
3.
Alias Writ of Execution dated
4.
Notice of
The facts
of this case are as follows:
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [herein
petitioners] V.L. ENTERPRISES AND/OR MR. FAUSTINO VISITACION is hereby ordered
to pay CAMILO FRANCISCO and TWENTY TWO WORKERS SIMILARLY SITUATED the total
amount of EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT
PESOS (P822,978.00) corresponding to their claims within ten (10) days
upon receipt of this order, otherwise, a Writ of Execution shall be issued.[6]
Petitioners
appealed the aforequoted Order of the Regional Director.
On
On
29 July 1999, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, invoking
therein that in a similar case pending with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-10-0762-27) involving the same parties and
issues, petitioners had already posted a supersedeas bond.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent is DENIED. Respondents are hereby given ten (10) days
from the receipt of this Order to post the requisite bond. Otherwise its appeal shall be dismissed.[7]
On
On
P422,978.00. On the basis of said Alias Writ of Execution,
Sheriff Wilfredo A. Gabito issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real
Properties on
Petitioners
filed a Petition for Certiorari with
the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87230, seeking the
nullification of the following Issuances:
1.
Order dated
2.
Alias Writ of Execution dated
3.
Notice of
On
Petitioners
received a copy of the latter Resolution on
The
petition must fail.
We
have aptly held in Mercado v. Security
Bank Corporation,[9]
that:
A principle almost repeated to satiety is that “an action for annulment of judgment cannot
and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.” A party must have first availed of an appeal,
a motion for new trial or a petition for relief before an action for annulment can
prosper. Its obvious rationale is to
prevent the party from benefiting from his inaction or negligence. x x x.
Therefore,
the petition cannot prosper insofar as it prayed for the annulment of the Court
of Appeals Resolution as petitioners did not file a Petition for Review on Certiorari within the reglementary
period. On the other hand, the prayer for
the annulment of the three other Issuances, namely the
Be
that as it may, the petition would still fail even if we decide the same on the
merits. Petitioners’ ground for
annulment of the three Issuances is the alleged lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the DOLE Regional Director in awarding amounts which exceeded P5,000.00. Petitioners cite the 1991 Minute Resolution
in 5D’s Liners v. Department of Labor and
Employment,[10] which in turn cited Servando’s Incorporated v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[11]
thus –
We
further hold that to harmonize the above-quoted three (3) provisions of the
Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor should be held as possessed of his plenary
visitorial powers to order the inspection of all establishments where labor is
employed, to look into all possible violations of labor laws and regulations
but the power to hear and decide employees' claims exceeding P5,000.00
for each employee should be left to the Labor Arbiter as the exclusive
repository of the power to hear and decide such claims. In other words, the
inspection conducted by the Secretary of Labor, through labor regulation
officers or industrial safety engineers, may yield findings of violations of
labor standards under labor laws; the Secretary of Labor may order compliance
with said labor standards, if necessary, through appropriate writs of execution
but when the findings disclose an employee claim of over P5,000.00, the
matter should be referred to the Labor Arbiter in recognition of his exclusive
jurisdiction over such claims.
and the
1993 Decision Halili Inn, Incorporated v.
Trajano,[12]
which reads –
[T]he original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide employee’s money claims arising from employer-employee relations exceeding
the aggregate amount of P5,000.00 for each employee is vested in the
Labor Arbiter (Art. 217 (a) (b), Labor Code as amended) and this is confirmed
by the provisions of Art. 129 of the same Code, which excludes from jurisdiction
of the Regional Director or any hearing officer of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) the power to hear and decide claims of employees arising from
employer-employee relations exceeding the amount of P5,000.00 for each
employee.
Petitioners
must have been unmindful of the fact that one year from the issuance of the Halili Decision, or on P5,000.00
per claimant. Thus, we held in Allied Investigation Bureau Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor and Employment[16]:
We dismiss the petition. Pursuant to
Section 1 of Republic Act 7730 [Approved on June 2, 1994] which amended Article
128 (b) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representative, in the exercise of their visitorial and enforcement
powers, are now authorized 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, sans any restriction with respect
to the jurisdictional amount of P5,000.00 provided under Article 129 and
Article 217 of the Code.
This was further affirmed by our
ruling in Guico v. Quisumbing,[17]
which stated categorically the abandonment of the Servando ruling:
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 Labor
Arbiter, 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 under Article 128 (b) of
the Labor Code, as amended, has been repealed by Republic Act No. 7730. 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.
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 enforce compliance 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:
Article 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 and Employment 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 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 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 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. (Italics supplied.)
The records of the House of
Representatives 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 (referring to Servando) and to finally
settle any lingering doubts on the visitorial and enforcement powers of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment." Petitioner's reliance on Servando is
thus untenable.
WHEREFORE, the
instant Petition for Annulment of Judgment, Writ of Execution and Notice of
Sale on Execution is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioners.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Marina
L. Buzon with Associate Justices Mario L. Guarina III and Santiago Javier
Ranada, concurring; rollo, pp. 22-23.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Records, pp. 176-177.
[8] Rollo, p. 19.
[9] G.R. No. 160445,
[10] G.R. No. 96705,
[11] G.R. No. 85840,
[12] G.R. No. 98318,
[13] Art. 129. Recovery
of Wages, Simple Money Claims and Other Benefits. – Upon complaint of any
interested party, the regional director of the Department of Labor and
Employment or any of the duly authorized hearing officers of the Department is
empowered, through summary proceeding
and after due notice, to hear and decide any matter involving the
recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits, including legal
interest, owing to an employee or person employed in domestic or household
service or househelper under this Code, arising from employer-employee
relations: Provided, That such
complaint does not include a claim for reinstatement; Provided, further, That the aggregate money claim of each employee
or househelper does not exceed Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). The regional director or hearing officer
shall decide or resolve the complaint within thirty (30) calendar days from the
date of the filing of the same. Any sum
thus recovered on behalf of any employee or househelper pursuant to this
Article shall be held in a special deposit account by, and shall be paid on
order of, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the regional director
directly to the employee or househelper concerned. Any such sum not paid to the employee or
househelper, because he cannot be located after diligent and reasonable effort
to locate him within a period of three (3) years, shall be held as a special
fund of the Department of Labor and Employment to be used exclusively for the
amelioration and benefit of workers.
Any decision or resolution of the regional director or hearing officer pursuant to this provision may be appealed on the same grounds provided in Article 223 of this Code, within five (5) calendar days from receipt of a copy of said decision or resolution, to the National Labor Relations Commission which shall resolve the appeal within ten (10) calendar days from the submission of the last pleading required or allowed under its rules.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative may supervise the payment of unpaid wages and other monetary claims and benefits, including legal interest, found owing to any employee or houselper under this Code.
[14] ART. 217. JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION. – (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation,
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising
from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)
regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation of
collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor
Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary
arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.
[15] Article 128 refers to the
Visitorial and Enforcement power of the Secretary of Labor or his duly
authorized representatives, while Article 129 refers to money claims
adjudication by the DOLE Regional Director where the aggregate money claim does
not exceed P5,000.00. Article 128
provides:
Article 128. Visitorial and Enforcement Power. – (a) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives, including labor regulation officers, shall have access to employer’s 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 still exists, the Secretary of labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to 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 considered in the course of inspection. (As amended by R.A. No. 7730, June 2, 1994.)
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 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. (As amended by R.A. No. 7730, June 2, 1994.)
(c) The Secretary of Labor may likewise order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or implementing rules and regulation poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. Within twenty-four hours, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether an order for the stoppage of work or suspension of operations shall be lifted or not. In case the violation is attributable to the fault of the employer, he shall pay the employees concerned their salaries or wages during the period of such stoppage of work or suspension of operation.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to obstruct, impede, delay or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives issued pursuant to the authority granted under this article, and no inferior court or entity shall issue temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order or otherwise assume jurisdiction over any case involving the enforcement orders issued in accordance with this Article.
(e) Any government employee found guilty of violation of, or abuse of authority, under this Article shall, after appropriate administrative investigation, be subject to summary dismissal from the service.
(f) The Secretary of Labor may by, appropriate regulations, require employers to keep and maintain such employment records as may be necessary in aid of his visitorial and enforcement powers under this Code.
[16] 377 Phil. 80, 91 (1999), citing Lord and Lady Salon v. Hon. Young G.R.
No. 123258,
[17] 359 Phil. 197, 207-209 (1998).