Gomez vs PNOC Development and Management Corp., GR No. 174044, November 27, 2009

Facts:

The respondent PDMC's board resolved to terminate petitioner Gomez's services retroactive on August 11, 1998, her retirement date. On January 5, 2000 the board informed petitioner of its decision. Thus, she further amended her complaint to include illegal dismissal. Respondent PDMC moved to have petitioner Gomez's complaint dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion upon a finding that Gomez was a corporate officer and that her case involved an intra-corporate dispute that fell under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) 902-A. On motion for reconsideration, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Third Division set aside the Labor Arbiter's order and remanded the case to the arbitration branch for further proceedings. The Third Division held that Gomez was a regular employee, not a corporate officer; hence, her complaint came under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
 Upon elevation of the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 88819, however, the latter rendered a decision on May 19, 2006, reversing the NLRC decision. The CA held that since Gomez's appointment as administrator required the approval of the board of directors, she was clearly a corporate officer. Thus, her complaint is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under P.D. 902-A, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) 8799. With the denial of her motion for reconsideration, Gomez filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Gomez was, in her capacity as administrator of respondent PDMC, an ordinary employee whose complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and benefits is within the jurisdiction of the NLRC.

 

 

Held:

That petitioner Gomez served concurrently as corporate secretary for a time is immaterial. A corporation is not prohibited from hiring a corporate officer to perform services under circumstances which will make him an employee. Indeed, it is possible for one to have a dual role of officer and employee. In Elleccion Vda. De Lecciones v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court upheld NLRC jurisdiction over a complaint filed by one who served both as corporate secretary and administrator, finding that the money claims were made as an employee and not as a corporate officer.

Okol vs Slimmers World International, GR No. 160146, December 11, 2009

Facts:

Respondent Slimmers World International employed petitioner Leslie Okol. She rose up the ranks to become Head Office Manager and then Director and Vice President until her dismissal. Prior to Okol's dismissal, Slimmers World preventively suspended Okol. The suspension arose from the seizure by the Bureau of Customs of seven Precor elliptical machines and seven Precor treadmills belonging to or consigned to Slimmers World. Okol filed a complaint with the NLRC against Slimmers World, Behavior Modifications, Inc. and Moy for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, unpaid commissions, damages and attorney's fees. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. The labor arbiter granted the motion to dismiss. The labor arbiter ruled that Okol was the vice-president of Slimmers World at the time of her dismissal. Since it involved a corporate officer, the dispute was an intra-corporate controversy falling outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration branch. The NLRC reversed and set aside the labor arbiter's order. The appellate court set aside the NLRC's Resolution... and affirmed the labor arbiter's Order

 

 

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case filed by petitioner.

 

 

Ruling:

The petition lacks merit. Clearly, from the documents submitted by respondents, petitioner was a director and officer of Slimmers World. The charges of illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, unpaid commissions, reinstatement and back wages imputed by petitioner against respondents fall squarely within the ambit of intra-corporate disputes. In a number of cases, we have held that a corporate officer's dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate controversy which arises between a stockholder and a corporation. Thus, the appellate court correctly ruled that it is not the NLRC but the regular courts which have jurisdiction over the present case. Petition denied.

Mainland Construction Co. Inc. vs Movilla, 320 Phil 353

Facts:

Ernesto Movilla, who was a Certified Public Accountant during his lifetime, was hired by Mainland in 1977.  Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Administrative Officer with a monthly salary of P4,700.00. Ernesto Movilla, recorded as receiving a fixed salary of P4,700.00 a month, was registered with the Social Security System (SSS) as an employee of petitioner corporation.  His contributions to the SSS, Medicare and Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) were deducted from his monthly earnings by his said employer. DOLE conducted a routine inspection on petitioner corporation and found that it committed such irregularities in the conduct of its business as: "1. Underpayment of wages under R.A. 6727 and RTWPB-XI-01; Non-implementation of Wage Order No. RTWPB-XI-02; Unpaid wages for 1989 and 1990; Non-payment of holiday pay and service incentive leave pay; and Unpaid 13th month pay. On the basis of this finding, petitioner corporation was ordered by DOLE to pay to its thirteen employees, which included Movilla, the total amount of P309,435.89, representing their salaries, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay differentials, unpaid wages and 13th month pay. All the employees listed in the DOLE's order were paid by petitioner corporation, except Ernesto Movilla. On October 8, 1991, Ernesto Movilla filed a case against petitioner corporation and/or Lucita, Robert, and Ellen, all surnamed Carabuena, for unpaid wages, separation pay and attorney's fees, with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Arbitration, Branch XI, Davao City. On February 29, 1992, Ernesto Movilla died while the case was being tried by the Labor Arbiter and was promptly substituted by his heirs, private respondents herein, with the consent of the Labor Arbiter.

 

 

Issue:

Which has jurisdiction over the case, the SEC or the NLRC?

 

Held:

Since Ernesto Movilla's complaint involves a labor dispute, it is the NLRC, under Article 217 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which has jurisdiction over the case at bench. In the case at bench, the claim for unpaid wages and separation pay filed by the complainant against petitioner corporation involves a labor dispute.  It does not involve an intra-corporate matter, even when it is between a stockholder and a corporation.  It relates to... an employer-employee relationship which is distinct from the corporate relationship of one with the other. Moreover, there was no showing of any change in the duties being performed by complainant as an Administrative Officer and as an Administrative Manager after his election by the Board of Directors.  What comes to the fore is whether there was a change in the nature of his functions and not merely the nomenclature or title given to his job.

Prudential Bank and Trust Company vs Reyes, GR No. 141093, February 20, 2001

 

Facts:

Clarita Tan Reyes was appointed Accounting Clerk by Prudential Bank and Trust Company (bank) and rose to become supervisor. She was appointed Assistant Vice-President in the foreign department of the Bank, tasked with the duties, among others, to collect checks drawn against overseas banks payable in foreign currency and to ensure the collection of foreign bills or checks purchased, including the signing of transmittal letters covering the same, until her illegal dismissal. Her length of service with the bank was equivalent to 28 years. The auditors of the Bank discovered that two checks, received by the Bank were not sent out for collection to Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) on her order until the said checks became stale. After thorough investigation, the Board has resolved not to re-elect her position here services were terminated. She filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and alleged that alleged that the real reason for her dismissal was her filing of the criminal cases against the bank president, the vice president and the auditors of the Bank, such filing not being a valid ground for her dismissal. LA ruled in favor of Reyes however NLRC reversed the said decision and ruled that dismissal was valid. CA reinstated LA‘s decision hence this petition. The bank argued that the dispute is an intra corporate controversy as it does the non-election of private respondent to the position of Assistant Vice-President of the Bank which falls under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (now the Regional Trial Court) under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A.

 

 

Issue:

Whether the dispute is an intra-corporate controversy?

 

Ruling:

The bank‘s contention that she merely holds an elective position and that in effect she is not a regular employee is belied by the nature of her work and her length of service with the Bank. It has been stated that ―the primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. Additionally, ―an employee is regular because of the nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring them.‖ As Assistant Vice-President of the Foreign Department of the Bank she performs tasks integral to the operations of the bank and her length of service with the bank totaling 28 years speaks volumes of her status as a regular employee of the bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her services may be terminated only for a just or authorized cause. Petitioner Bank can no longer raise the issue of jurisdiction under the principle of estoppel. The Bank participated in the proceedings from start to finish. It was only when the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent did it raise the issue of jurisdiction. The Bank actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. . Hence, a party may be estopped or barred from raising the question of jurisdiction for the first time in a petition before the Supreme Court when it failed to do so in the early stages of the proceedings.

Tabang vs NLRC, 266 SCRA 462

Facts:

Purificacion Tabang was a founding member, a member of the Board of Trustees, and the corporate secretary of private respondent Pamana Golden Care Medical Center Foundation, Inc.,a non-stock corporation engaged in extending medical and surgical services. The Board of Trustees issued a memorandum appointing petitioner as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator of private respondent's Pamana Golden Care Medical Center in Calamba, Laguna.
 Petitioner was allegedly informed personally by Dr. Ernesto Naval that in a special meeting held on April 30, 1993, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution relieving her of her position as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator, and appointing the latter and Dr. Benjamin Donasco as acting Medical Director and acting Hospital Administrator, respectively. Petitioner averred that she thereafter received a copy of said board resolution. On June 6, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages, allowances and 13th month pay before the labor arbiter. Respondent corporation moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. It argued that petitioner's position as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator was interlinked with her position as member of the Board of Trustees, hence, her dismissal is an intra-corporate controversy which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that her position as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator was separate and distinct from her position as member of the Board of Trustees. She claimed that there is no intra-corporate controversy involved since she filed the complaint in her capacity as Medical Director and Hospital Administrator, or as an employee of private respondent.

 

Issue:

Which has jurisdiction over the case at bar?

 

 

Held:

We agree with the findings of the NLRC that it is the SEC which has jurisdiction over the case at bar. The charges against herein private respondent partake of the nature of an intra-corporate controversy. Similarly, the determination of the rights of petitioner and the concomitant liability of private respondent arising from her ouster as a medical director and/or hospital administrator, which are corporate offices, is an intra-corporate controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, a medical director and a hospital administrator are considered as corporate officers under the by-laws of respondent corporation. Section 2(i), Article I thereof states that one of the powers of the Board of Trustees is "(t)o appoint a Medical Director, Comptroller/Administrator, Chiefs of Services and such other officers as it may deem necessary and prescribe their powers and duties."

Union Motors vs NLRC, 314 SCRA 531, 539

 

Facts:

Alejandro Etis was hired by Union Motors as an automotive mechanic at the service department in its Paco Branch. In 1994, he was transferred to Caloocan City branch, where his latest monthly salary was P6,330.00. During his employment, he was awarded the "Top Technician" for the month of May in 1995 and Technician of the Year (1995), and received several other awards that year. Etis made a phone call to Rosita de la Cruz, the company nurse, and informed her that he had to take a sick leave as he had a painful and unbearable toothache. The next day, he again phoned de la Cruz and told her that he could not report to work because he still had to consult a doctor. Finding that Etis' ailment was due to tooth inflammation, the doctor referred her to the dentist for further check-up. Because of several absences, Union Motors issued an Office Memorandum terminating the services of Etis for having incurred these absences without notification. To them, it was considered abandonment under Sec. 6.1.1. Article III of the Company Rules. Eventually his dentist successfully extracted Etis' tooth and as soon as he recovered, he reported back to work. Unfortunately he was denied entrance to the company premises; and was also informed that his employment had already been terminated. Soon he filed before the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal. Etis allege that he was dismissed from his employment without just and legal basis, while Union Motors averred that his dismissal was justified by his ten unauthorized absences. It posited that under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employee's gross and habitual neglect of his duties is a just cause for termination. It further alleged that the respondent's repetitive and habitual acts of being absent without notification constituted nothing less than abandonment, which is a form of neglect of duties. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint on the ground that Etis' failure to report to work for 10 days without approved leave of absence is a gross neglect of duty. On appeal to the NLRC, it reversed the LA's decision ordering reinstatement to Etis. In the CA, it agreed with the NLRC that medical certificates need not be notarized in order to be admitted as evidence.

 

 

Issue:

Is it a valid dismissal?

 

Ruling:

No. Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. Thus, it must be based on just cause and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. To effect a valid dismissal, the law requires not only that there must be a just and valid cause for termination; it must likewise enjoin the employer to afford the employee the opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The Labor Code enumerates the just causes for the termination of employment by the employer. Second, to warrant removal from the service, the negligence should not merely be gross but also habitual. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

NACPIL vs Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp., GR No. 144767, March 21, 2002

 

Facts:

Petitioner states that he was Assistant General Manager for Finance/Administration and Comptroller of private respondent Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) from 1996 until April 1997. According to petitioner, when Emiliano Templo was appointed to replace IBC President Tomas Gomez III sometime in March 1997, the former (Templo) told the Board of Directors that as soon as he assumes the IBC presidency, he would terminate the services of petitioner. Apparently, Templo blamed petitioner, along with a certain Mr. Basilio and Mr. Gomez, for the prior mismanagement of IBC. Upon his assumption of the IBC presidency, Templo allegedly harassed, insulted, humiliated and pressured petitioner into resigning until the latter was forced to retire. However, Templo refused to pay him his retirement benefits. Furthermore, Templo allegedly refused to recognize petitioner’s employment, claiming that petitioner was not the Assistant General Manager/Comptroller of IBC but merely usurped the powers of the Comptroller. Hence, petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. Instead of filing its position paper, IBC filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case. IBC contended that petitioner was a corporate officer who was duly elected by the Board of Directors of IBC; hence, the case qualifies as an intra-corporate dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, the motion was denied by the Labor Arbiter in an Order. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision stating that petitioner had been illegally dismissed. IBC appealed to the NLRC, but the same was dismissed in a Resolution. IBC then filed a motion for reconsideration that was likewise denied. IBC then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which petition was granted by the appellate court in its Decision which reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the appellate court. Hence, this petition.

 

 

Issue:

Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the case for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits filed by petitioner.

 

Ruling:

The Court finds that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the same. Under Presidential Decree No. 902-A (the Revised Securities Act), the law in force when the complaint for illegal dismissal was instituted by petitioner in 1997, the following cases fall under the exclusive of the SEC:

a) Devices or schemes employed by or any acts of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partners, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission;

b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;

c) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations;

d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships, or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association possesses property to cover all of its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the Management Committee created pursuant to this decree.

The Court has consistently held that there are two elements to be considered in determining whether the SEC has jurisdiction over the controversy, to wit: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.

Lozon vs NLRC GR No. 107660, January 2, 1995, 240 SCRA 1

 

Facts:

Petitioner Ramon C. Lozon, a certified public accountant, was a Senior Vice-President-Finance of Private respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (“PAL”), when his services were terminated  in the aftermath of the much-publicized “two-billion-peso PAL scam.” Aggrieved, petitioner, filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) in Manila for illegal dismissal and for reinstatement, with back wages and “fringe benefits such as Vacation leave, Sick leave, 13th month pay, Christmas Bonus, Medical Expenses, car expenses, trip pass entitlement, etc., plus moral damages of P40 Million, exemplary damages of P10 Million and reasonable attorney’s fees.”

  

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case in a corporation.

 

Held:

No. Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction over termination of corporate officers and stockholders which, under the law, is considered intra-corporate dispute. It must be emphasized that a corporate officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act and/or intra-corporate controversy and that nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom which the Board of Directors may have in taking such action. The Regional Trial Courts now have jurisdiction under RA 8799(Securities Regulation Act of 2000). Jurisdiction of RTC includes adjudication of monetary claims of the corporate officer who was dismissed, such as unpaid salaries, leaves, 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s fee.

Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. vs Faburada, GR No. 121948, October 8, 2001

 

Facts:

Private respondents Faburada et. al. filed a complaint against   PHCCI for illegal dismissal, premium pay, separation pay, wage differential, moral damages and attorney’s fees PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that noemployer-employee relationship exists since privaterespondents are all members and co-owners of thecooperative. Also, private respondents have not exhausted the remedies provided in the coop by laws. PHCCI also filed a supplemental motion to dismiss alleging that RA 6939, the Cooperative Development Authority Law, requires conciliation or mediation within the cooperative before a resort to judicial proceeding. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, holding that the case is impressed with employer-employee relationship and that the laws on cooperatives is subservient to the Labor Code. The NLRC affirmed.

 

Issue: 

Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties and WON private respondents were regular employees

 

Held:

Yes. Elements in determining existence of employer-employee relationship:

1) Selection and engagement of the worker or the power to hire

2) The power to dismiss

3) Payment of wages by whatever means

4) Power to control the worker’s conduct. 

The   above elements are present here. PHCCI through its Manager Mr. Edilberto Lantaca, Jr. hired respondents as Computer   programmer and clerks. They worked regular working hours, were assigned specific duties, were paid regular wages, and made to accomplish regular time records, and worked under the supervision of the manager.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Listana Sr., GR No. 152611, August 5, 2003

Facts:

Private respondent Listana voluntarily offered to sell his land of 246.0561 ha. in Sorsogon to the government, through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). DAR valued the property at P5,871,689.03 but Listana refused to sell at that price, so the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in an administrative proceeding determined the just compensation of the land at P10,956,963.25 and ordered the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the same to Listana. A writ of execution was issued by PARAD to that effect but it was apparently not complied with by LBP so a Motion for Contempt was filed by Listana with the PARAD against petitioner LBP. PARAD granted the Motion for Contempt and cited for indirect contempt and ordered the arrest of ALEX A. LORAYES, the Manager of LBP. LBP obtained a preliminary injunction from the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon enjoining DARAB from enforcing the arrest order against Lorayes. Listana filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. CA nullified the order of the RTC. Consequently, petitioner LBP filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

 

 

Issue:

Whether the order for the arrest of petitioner's manager, Mr. Alex Lorayes by the PARAD, was valid.

 

Ruling:

The arrest order issued by PARAD against Lorayes was not valid because the contempt proceedings initiated through an unverified "Motion for Contempt" filed by the respondent with the PARAD were themselves invalid. Said proceedings were invalid for the following reasons: First, the Rules of Court clearly require the filing of a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court, which was not complied with in this case. The charge was not initiated by the PARAD motu proprio; rather, it was by a motion filed by respondent. Second, neither the PARAD nor the DARAB have jurisdiction to decide the contempt charge filed by the respondent. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was beyond the power of the PARAD and the DARAB. Consequently, all the proceedings that stemmed from respondent’s "Motion for Contempt," specifically the Orders of the PARAD dated August 20, 2000 and January 3, 2001 for the arrest of Alex A. Lorayes, are null and void.

Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. vs Leogardo Jr. GR No. 72247, April 10, 1992

Facts:

Petitioner is a private corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws. It is engaged in coconut processing. Private respondent Free Workers of the Coconut Industry-United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (FWCI-ULGWP) is a labor organization recognized by petitioner as the sole bargaining representative of its rank and file employees at its plant at Talairon, Oroquieta City. On October 18, 1983, private respondent labor union, through its president, filed a letter-complaint with the Regional Office No. 10 of the Ministry of Labor & Employment (MOLE) at Cagayan de Oro City, alleging that petitioner company had not been complying with Wage Order No. 2 which provided for wage increases effective on July 6, 1983 and October 1, 1983 and had failed to provide health and safety devices in its premises as well as to its workers. Upon order of the Regional Director, the Labor Standards and Welfare Officers conducted an on-the-spot inspection both of the payrolls and the premises of petitioner company. On June 4, 1984, Assistant Regional Director Jude T. Bontol, issued an order directing petitioner company to provide the workers and the work place with the safety equipment above-enumerated, to pay the workers/complainants the total sum of P54,591.85 representing the efficiency in wages; and to pay the workers the total sum of P51,436.02 representing deficiency in allowances, thru this office within ten (10) days from receipt of this order. The said order was affirmed on appeal by public respondent Deputy Minister of the MOLE.

 

 

Issue:

Whether or not public respondent acted without jurisdiction in passing upon the money claims raised in the instant case, the same being within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission.

 

Held:

In the case at bar, the aggregate claim of the workers is P106,027.87, but the claim of each of the more than thirty (30) workers does not exceed P5,000.00. This being the case, the jurisdiction to decide the claim properly belongs to the Regional Director. The only instance when the Regional Director may be divested of such jurisdiction is when under Art. 128 (b) of the Labor Code, the following three (3) circumstances concur, to wit:
(a) the petitioner (employer) contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) that in order to resolve such issue, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and

(c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

SSK PARTS CORPORATION VS CAMAS, GR No. 85934, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 675

Facts:

 

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated November 16, 1988 of the Department of Labor and Employment, affirming the Order of the Regional Director dated January 11, 1988 in three consolidated cases filed against the petitioner: (1) by Teodorico Camas for illegal deductions; (2) for underpayment of wages, non-payment of legal holiday pay and service incentive leave filed by the union in behalf of its members; and (3) for non-payment of employees' service incentive leave, underpayment of allowance, overtime pay, premium pay, and non- payment of two (2) regular holidays in December which were discovered upon routine inspection conducted by the labor regulation officers. After the parties had submitted their position papers and evidence, the Regional Director issued an order on January 11, 1988, the dispositive portion of which reads thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, an Order is hereby entered:

a) Ordering respondent [herein petitioner] to refund to complainant Teodorico Camas the amount of Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Pesos (P775.00) having been illegally deducted from his salaries; and

b) Ordering respondent to pay individual claimants in the second case their unpaid overtime pay, legal holiday pay, living allowance and service incentive leave within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, otherwise a writ of execution shall be issued for the enforcement of this Order. Petitioner's appeal to the Secretary of Labor was dismissed by the latter. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

 

Issue:

 

Whether or not the Regional Director has no jurisdiction over its employees' claims.

 

Held:

 

The petition is devoid of merit. The jurisdiction of the Regional Director over claims for violation of labor standards is conferred by Article 128-B of the Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 111 of March 26,1987 which provides that:

(b) The Provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code 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 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 regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspections.

The jurisdiction of the Regional Director over employees' claims for wages and other monetary benefits not exceeding P5,000 has been affirmed by Republic Act No. 6715, amending Article 129 of the Labor Code.

Being a curative statute, Republic Act No. 6715 may be given retroactive effect if, as in this case, no vested rights would be impaired. Under the exception clause in Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, the Regional Director may not be divested of his jurisdiction over these claims, unless three (3) elements concur, namely: (a) that the petitioner (employer) contests the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues thereon; (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.

In this case, although the petitioner contested the Regional Director's finding of violations of labor standards committed by the petitioner, that issue was resolved by an examination of evidentiary matters which were verifiable in the ordinary course of inspection. Hence, there was no need to indorse the case to the appropriate arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for adjudication. The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.