ABOITIZ SHIPPING vs DELA SERNA In the absence of any of the requisites above enumerated,
G.R. No. 88538, April 25, 1990 it is the Labor Arbiter who shall have exclusive original
FACTS:
A complaint was filed by the Aboitiz Shipping Employees
Association against Aboitiz Shipping Corporation for non-
compliance of the mandated minimum wage rates and
allowances. Accordingly, the Labor Regulation Officers of
the Regional Office a quo inspected the respondent's
employment records.
Series of hearings were conducted whereby the
respondent was directed to present and submit all its
pertinent papers/employment records covered by the
investigation. However, on several occasions, the
respondent failed to appear.
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation was required for quite a
number of times to present in evidence its employees
payrolls and vouchers. However, Aboitiz Shipping failed
to do so.
The Regional Director of DOLE-NCR rendered a decision
ordering Aboitiz Shipping to pay the complainants the
total amount of PhP1,350,828.00 representing
underpayment of daily allowance of PhP 2.00per day
reckoned from 16 February 1982 to 15 February 1985.
On appeal to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, in which Aboitiz Shipping questioned the
jurisdiction of respondent Regional Director over the
instant claims, respondent Undersecretary issued the
Order dismissing petitioner's appeal and affirming the
Order of the respondent Director.
ISSUE: W/N the Regional Director of DOLE-NCR
correctly assumed jurisdiction over the money claims
filed with him by the complainants.
HELD:
Under the foregoing provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of
the Labor Code, as amended, the Regional Director is
empowered, through summary proceeding and after due
notice, to hear and decide cases involving recovery of
wages and other monetary claims and benefits, including
legal interest, provided the following requisites are
present, to wit:
1) the claim is presented by an employee or person
employed in domestic or household service, or
househelper;
2) the claim arises from employer-employee relations;
3) the claimant does not seek reinstatement; and
4) the aggregate money claim of each employee or
househelper does not exceed P5,000.00 (Art. 129, Labor
Code, as amended by R.A. 6715).
jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee
relations, except claims for employees' compensation,
social security, medicare and maternity benefits, all these
pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code, particularly
paragraph six (6) thereof.
In the case at bar, it is noted that in the Order of the
Regional Director, the latter found each of the seven
hundred seventeen (717) complainants entitled to a
uniform amount of P1,884.00.. All the other requisites for
the exercise of the power of the Regional Director under
Article 129 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715,
are present. It follows that the respondent Regional
Director properly took cognizance of the claims, subject
of this petition.
As to the petitioner's contention that it was denied due
process of law as it was not afforded time and opportunity
to present its evidence, the records show that on several
occasions despite due notice, petitioner failed to either
appear at the scheduled hearings, or to present its
employees' payrolls and vouchers for wages and salaries,
particularly. Therefore, petitioner was not denied due
process of law.
The Court also does not agree with Aboitiz Shippings
allegation that it was improper for the respondent
Regional Director to order in the questioned Order,
compliance with P.D. 1678 as the issue on the said
decree was never raised by private respondent in its
complaint filed before the Regional Director. While it may
be true that P.D. 1678 is not one of the laws where non-
compliance therewith was complained of, still, the
Regional Director correctly acted in ordering petitioner to
comply therewith, as he (Regional Director) has such
power under his visitorial and enforcement authority
provided under Article 128(a) of the Labor Code.
The Court also finds no merit in Aboitiz Shippings
contention that the case should have dismissed outright
by virtue of the Compromise Agreement entered into by
the parties. Said Compromise Agreement shall not bind
the complainant union since it was entered into by one Mr.
Manuel in his personal capacity and a representative of
Aboitiz Shipping.