Bay Haven vs Abuan (Labor Law)

Bay Haven, Inc. vs Abuan

GR No. 160859 

July 30, 2008

 

Facts:

Upon complaint of Florentino Abuan, one of herein respondents, the DOLE, in the exercise of its visitorial, inspection and enforcement powers, through its Regional Director for NCR, issued an Order commanding petitioners to pay respondents a total of P638,187.15 corresponding to the latter’s claims for underpayment as petitioners’ workers. The Regional Director based his Order on the results of the inspection conducted by one of its inspectors who found that petitioner New Bay Haven Restaurant, located at the Army and Navy Club, Kalaw St., Manila, under the ownership or management of petitioner Te, committed violations of Labor Standards Law. New Bay-Haven Restaurant and its co-petitioner Te filed with the DOLE-NCR Regional Office a Motion for Reconsideration of order, alleging that the office had no jurisdiction over the case and that the order was issued in denial of petitioners’ right to due process. They argued that jurisdiction over the case was lodged with the NLRC, and not the DOLE-NCR, due to the amount of the claims involved. They added that their right to due process was also denied because the order was issued without them being furnished copies of the complaint and the inspection report and without being notified of the hearings held in the case.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order. In the motion, petitioners insisted that their documentary evidence proved that their obligations to respondents had been discharged and that the DOLE had no jurisdiction over the case.

Treating the motion for reconsideration as an appeal, the DOLE Undersecretary issued a Resolution, denying the appeal filed by petitioners, 16 upholding the Regional Director’s finding that the quitclaims could not be relied upon to deny respondents’ claims, and reiterating that the DOLE had jurisdiction to decide the case.

 

Issue:

Whether the DOLE Secretary and her authorized representatives have jurisdiction to impose the monetary liability against petitioners.

 

Ruling:

The DOLE Secretary and her authorized representatives such as the DOLE-NCR Regional Director, have jurisdiction to enforce compliance with labor standards laws under the broad visitorial and enforcement powers conferred by Article 128 of the Labor Code, and expanded by R.A. No. 7730. The Court has held that the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standards laws and other labor legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims filed by workers. This has been the rule since R.A. No. 7730 was enacted on June 2, 1994, amending Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, to expand the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Secretary. Under the former rule, the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction only in cases where the amount of the claim does not exceed P5,000.00.

The records also clearly indicate that the Regional Director and the DOLE Secretary resolved the case based on violations found by the labor inspection officer, which do not include illegal dismissal. The said violations are within the jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary and his representatives to address. The questioned Orders dated December 29, 1998, April 18, 2000 and September 19, 2001 did not mention illegal dismissal, and properly so, because there was no such finding in the inspector’s report. Being in the nature of compliance orders, said orders, under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, are strictly based on “the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers x x x made in the course of inspection,” and not on any complaint filed. Though a complaint may initiate the case or an inspection, its allegations may not necessarily be upheld by the labor inspector or the Regional Director.

Batongbuhay vs Dela Serna (Labor Law)

Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. vs Sec. Dela Serna,

GR No. 886963, August 6, 1999 

370 Phil 872

Facts:

Employees filed a complaint against Batong Buhay for: 

unpaid salaries from March 16, 1987 to present, 

unpaid and ECOLA differentials under Wage OrderNos. 2 and 5, 

unpaid 13th months pay for 1985 and 1986, and 

upaid vacation/sick/compensatory leave benefits. 

Labor Standards and Welfare Officers & Regional Director: Batong Buhay must pay Ty et al. P4,818,746.40.  Regional Director directed Batong Buhay to put up a cash or surety bond otherwise a writ of execution will be issued. The Special Sheriff seized three units of Peterbuilt trucks and then sold the same by public auction. Various materials and motor vehicles were also seized on different dates and sold at public auction. Batong Buhay finally posted a supersede as bond and appealed the Order contending that the Regional Director had no jurisdiction over the case. Undersecretary dela Serna upheld the jurisdiction of the Regional Director and annulled all the auction sales conducted by Special Sheriff. Motion for Reconsideration denied. Motion for Intervention was filed by MFT Corporation and Salter Holdings Pty., Ltd. for exclusion from annulment of the properties sold at the auction sale. Granted. Motion for reconsideration denied.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the employees of BBGMI

2. Whether or not the auction sales conducted by the said Special Sheriff are valid

Held:

1.Yes. The subject labor standards case of the petition arose from the visitorial and enforcement powers by the Regional Director of DOLE. Even in the absence of E.O. 111, Regional Directors already had enforcement powers over money claims, effective under P.D. 850, issued on December 16,1975, which transferred labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system. E.O. No. 111 was issued on December 24, 1986 or three months after the promulgation of the Secretary of Labor's decision upholding private respondents' salary differentials and ECOLAs on September 24, 1986. The amendment of the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Regional Director (Article 128(b)) by said E.O. 111 reflects the intention enunciated in Policy Instructions Nos. 6 and 37 to empower the Regional Directors to resolve uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. The present law, RA 7730, can be considered a curative statute to reinforce the conclusion that the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the present labor standards case.

2. No. As a general rule, findings of fact and conclusion of law arrived at by quasi-judicial agencies are not to be disturbed absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion tainting the same. There was grave abuse of discretion when the Undersecretary, without any evidentiary support, adjudged such prices as "scandalously low". He merely relied on the self-serving assertion by the petitioner that the value of the auctioned properties was more than the price bid. The sales are null and void since on the properties of petitioner involved was constituted a mortgage between petitioner and the Development Bank of the Philippines.

Saura Import and Export vs DBP (Credit Transactions)

Saura Import and Export vs DBP, (1972)

 Facts:

Saura applied to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC), before its conversion into DBP, for an industrial loan to be used for construction of factory building, for payment of the balance of the purchase price of the jute machinery and equipment and as additional working capital. In Resolution No.145, the loan application was approved to be secured first by mortgage on the factory buildings, the land site, and machinery and equipment to be installed.

 The mortgage was registered and documents for the promissory note were executed. The cancellation of the mortgage was requested to make way for the registration of a mortgage contract over the same property in favor of Prudential Bank and Trust Co., the latter having issued Saura letter of credit for the release of the jute machinery. As security, Saura execute a trust receipt in favor of the Prudential. For failure of Saura to pay said obligation, Prudential sued Saura.

 After 9 years after the mortgage was cancelled, Saura sued RFc alleging failure to comply with tits obligations to release the loan proceeds, thereby prevented it from paying the obligation to Prudential Bank.

 The trial court ruled in favor of Saura, ruling that there was a perfected contract between the parties ad that the RFC was guilty of breach thereof.

 

Issue:

WON there was a perfected contract between the parties

 

Held:

Yes, there is. Article 1934 provides: An accepted promise to deliver something by way of commodatum or simple loan is binding upon the parties, but the commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perfected until delivery of the object of the contract.

There was undoubtedly offer and acceptance in the case. When an application for a loan of money was approved by resolution of the respondent corporation and the responding mortgage was executed and registered, there arises a perfected consensual contract.