SECOND DIVISION
|
JETHRO INTELLIGENCE
& SECURITY CORPORATION and YAKULT PHILS., INC. Petitioners, - versus - THE HON. SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, FREDERICK GARCIA, GIL CORDERO, LEONIELYN UDALBE,
MICHAEL BENOZA, EDWIN ABLITER, CELEDONIO SUBERE and MA. CORAZON LANUZA, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 172537 Present: CARPIO, * CARPIO MORALES, Acting Chairperson, BRION, CASTILLO, and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: August
14, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Petitioner Jethro Intelligence and Security
Corporation (Jethro) is a security service contractor with a security service
contract agreement with co-petitioner Yakult Phils., Inc. (Yakult). On the basis of a complaint[1]
filed by respondent Frederick Garcia (Garcia), one of the security guards deployed
by Jethro, for underpayment of wages, legal/special holiday pay, premium pay
for rest day, 13th month pay, and night shift differential, the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE)-Regional Office No. IV conducted an inspection
at Yakult’s premises in Calamba, Laguna in the course of which several labor
standards violations were noted, including keeping of payrolls and daily time
records in the main office, underpayment
of wages, overtime pay and other benefits, and non-registration with the DOLE as
required under Department Order No. 18-02[2].
Hearings on Garcia’s complaint and on the subsequent
complaints of his co-respondents Gil Cordero et al. were conducted during which
Jethro submitted copies of payrolls covering
By Order[3] of September 9, 2004, the DOLE Regional Director, noting
petitioners’ failure to rectify the violations noted during the above-stated inspection
within the period given for the purpose, found them jointly and severally
liable to herein respondents for the aggregate amount of EIGHT
HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TEN AND 16/100 PESOS (P809,210.16) representing their wage
differentials, regular holiday pay, special day premium pay, 13th
month pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, night shift differential
premium and rest day premium. Petitioners
were also ordered to submit proof of payment to the claimants within ten
calendar days, failing which the entire award would be doubled, pursuant to Republic
Act No. 8188, and the corresponding writs of execution and garnishment would be
issued.
Jethro appealed[4] to
the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), faulting the Regional Director
for, among other things, basing the computation of the judgment award on
Garcia’s affidavit instead of on the data reflected in the payrolls for 2001 to
2004.[5]
By Decision[6] dated
Petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration[7] of the SOLE Decision having been denied,[8] they filed a petition for certiorari before
the Court of Appeals, insisting that the affidavit of Garcia should not have
been given evidentiary weight in computing the judgment award.
By
Decision[9] of
Petitioners
attribute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOLE Regional Director
and the SOLE in this wise: (1) the SOLE has
no jurisdiction over the case because, following Article 129 of the Labor Code,
the aggregate money claim of each employee exceeded P5,000.00; (2) petitioner
Jethro, as the admitted employer of respondents, could not be expected to keep payrolls
and daily time records in Yakult’s premises as its office is in Quezon City,
hence, the inspection conducted in Yakult’s plant had no basis; and (3) having
filed the required bond equivalent to the judgment award, and as the Regional Director’s
Order of September 9, 2004 was not served on their counsel of record, the writs
of execution and garnishment subsequently issued were not in order.
And petitioners
maintain that Garcia’s affidavit should not have been given weight, they not
having been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine him.
The
petition is bereft of merit.
The sole
office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of
jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It does not include the correction of a
tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence
and factual findings thereon, especially since factual findings of administrative
agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case.[11]
In dismissing
petitioners’ petition for certiorari and thus affirming the SOLE Decision, the
appellate court did not err. The scope
of the visitorial powers of the SOLE and his/her duly authorized
representatives was clarified in Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor and Employment,[12] viz:
While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.00, said provisions do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives.
Rather, said powers are defined and set forth in Article 128 of the Labor Code (as amended by R.A. No. 7730) thus:
Art.
128. Visitorial and enforcement
power.—
x x x x
(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 finding of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. [Emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied]
x x x x
The aforequoted [Art. 128] explicitly excludes from its coverage Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code by the phrase “(N)otwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary xxx” thereby retaining and further strengthening the power of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representative to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of said 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.[13] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
In Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Laguesma case, the Court went on to hold that
x x x if the labor standards case is covered by the exception clause in Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, then the Regional Director will have to endorse the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. In order to divest the Regional Director or his representatives of jurisdiction, the following elements must be present: (a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues therein; (b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and (c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. The rules also provide that the employer shall raise such objections during the hearing of the case or at any time after receipt of the notice of inspection results.[14]
In the
case at bar, the Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction over the
case as it does not come under the exception clause in Art. 128(b) of the Labor
Code. While petitioner Jethro appealed the
inspection results and there is a need to examine evidentiary matters to resolve
the issues raised, the payrolls presented by it were considered in the ordinary
course of inspection. While the
employment records of the employees could not be expected to be found in
Yakult’s premises in Calamba, as Jethro’s offices are in
Jethro’s
failure to keep payrolls and daily time records in Yakult’s premises was not
the only labor standard violation found to have been committed by it; it
likewise failed to register as a service contractor with the DOLE, pursuant to
Department Order No. 18-02 and, as earlier stated, to pay the wages and
benefits in accordance with the rates prescribed by law.
Respecting petitioners’ objection to the
weight given to Garcia’s affidavit, it bears noting that said affidavit was not the only basis in arriving at the
judgment award. The payrolls for
Article 221 of the Labor Code is clear: technical rules are not
binding, and the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor
cases to serve the demand of substantial justice. The rule of evidence prevailing
in court of law or equity shall not be controlling in labor
cases and it is the spirit and
intention of the Labor Code that the Labor Arbiter shall use
every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and
objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due
process. Labor laws mandate the speedy administration of
justice, with least attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the
fundamental requisites of due process.[17]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears
noting that while Jethro claims that it did not cross-examine Garcia, the
minutes of the
Respecting the fact that Jethro’s first
counsel of record, Atty. Benjamin Rabuco III, was not furnished a copy of the
September 9, 2004 Order of the Director, the SOLE noted in her assailed
Decision that since Atty. Thaddeus
Venturanza formally entered his appearance as Jethro’s new counsel on appeal – and
an appeal was indeed filed and duly verified by Jethro’s owner/manager, for all
practical purposes, the failure to furnish Atty. Rabuco a copy of the said Order had
been rendered moot. For, on account of such lapse, the SOLE deleted
the double indemnity
award and held that the writs issued in implementation of the September 9, 2004
Order were null and void, “without prejudice to the subsequent issuance by the
Regional Director of the writs necessary to implement” the SOLE Decision.
Thus, the
DOLE-Regional Office subsequently issued the following Orders: Order[19]
of
It bears
emphasis that the SOLE, under Article 106 of the Labor Code, as amended,
exercises quasi-judicial power, at least to the extent necessary to determine
violations of labor standards provisions of the Code and
other labor legislation.
He/she or the Regional Directors can issue compliance orders and writs
of execution for the enforcement thereof.
The significance of and binding effect of the compliance orders of the
DOLE Secretary is enunciated in Article 128 of the Labor Code,
as amended, viz:
ART. 128. Visitorial and enforcement power. –
x x x x
(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.
And
Sec. 5, Rule V (Execution) of the Rules on Disposition of Labor Standards Cases
in Regional Offices provides that the filing of a petition for certiorari shall
not stay the execution of the appealed order or decision, unless the aggrieved
party secures a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Court. In the case at bar, no TRO or injunction was issued,
hence, the issuance of the questioned writs of execution and garnishment by the
DOLE-Regional Director was in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals’
Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C. |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 671 in lieu of Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing who is on official leave.
[1] Records, p. 3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag (ret), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza. CA rollo, pp. 98-107.
[10] CA rollo, pp. 122-123
[11]
[12] 377 Phil. 80 (1999).
[13]
[14] Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 152396, November 20, 2007, 537 SCRA 651, 663.
[15] Records, p. 30.
[16] G.R. No. 157634,
[17]
[18] Records, p. 26.
[19] Records, 465-466.
[20]