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.