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.