Odin Security Agency v. De la Serna
Eventually, the Regional Director (RD) ruled for the
G.R. No. 87439
February 21, 1990
Doctrine:
1. Under Art. 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by EO 111,
the Regional Directors, in representation of the Secretary of
Labor and notwithstanding the grant of exclusive original
jurisdiction to Labor Arbiters by Article 217 of the Labor Code,
have power to hear cases involving violations of labor standards
provisions of the Labor Code or other legislation discovered in
the course of normal inspection, and order compliance therewith,
provided that: (1) the alleged violations of the employer involve
persons who are still his employees, i.e., not dismissed, and (2)
the employer does not contest the findings of the labor
regulations officer or raise issues which cannot be resolved
without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in
the normal course of inspection.
2. Under the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both
visitorial and enforcement power over labor standards cases, and
is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims, provided
there still exists an employer-employee relationship, and the
findings of the regional office is not contested by the employer
concerned.
Recit-ready: 56 employees filed a complaint against OSA charging
it with underpayment of wages, illegal deductions, non-payment of
night shift differential, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday work,
rest days and Sundays, service incentive leaves, vacation and sick
leaves, and 13th-month pay. Conciliation efforts failed and so the
parties submitted position papers. Several employees withdrew their
complaints.
employees and granted monetary awards to them. Upon appeal, the
Undersecretary affirmed the decision and also ordered the
reinstatement of the 15 remaining complainants. OSA then
questioned via certiorari and prohibition the jurisdiction of the RD
and the Undersecretary. It also alleged it was denied due process.
Issue: W/N the DOLE RD and Undersecretary have jurisdiction
Held: YES. Why?
a. The RD and the Undersecretary did have jurisdiction over
the respondents’ complaint which was originally for
violation of labor standards (Art. 128[b], Labor Code). Only
later did the guards ask for backwages on account of their
alleged constructive dismissal. Once vested, that jurisdiction
continued until the entire controversy was decided. REFER
TO DOCTRINES FOR LEGAL BASIS
b. Moreover, OSA is estopped from questioning the alleged
lack of jurisdiction of the RD over the respondents’ claims.
The principle of jurisdiction by estoppel bars it from doing
this.
c. As for the denial of due process, SC held that submission of
position papers already satisfied the requirement.
Facts:
 The case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to review:
(1) the order of Regional Director Luna Piezas and (2) the
orders of DOLE Undersecretary Dionisio De la Serna, and to
enjoin the execution of said orders.
 In 1986, a complaint was filed by Sergio Apilado and 55
others charging Odin Security Agency (OSA) underpayment
of wages, illegal deductions, non-payment of night shift
 differential, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday work,
rest days and Sundays, service incentive leaves, vacation and
sick leaves, and 13th-month pay.
 Conciliation efforts failed and so they submitted position
papers.
 Respondents alleged in their position paper that:
o Their latest monthly salary was P1,600.
o That from this amount, petitioner deducted P100 as
administrative cost and P20 as bond.
o That they were not paid their premium pay and overtime
pay for working on the 11 legal holidays per year.
o That since respondents were relieved or constructively
dismissed, they must also be paid backwages.
 OSA contended that some 48 security guards threatened
mass action against it.
o Alarmed by a possible abandonment of post by the
guards and mindful of its contractual obligations to its
clients/principals, OSA relieved and re-assigned the
complaining guards to other posts in Metro Manila.
o Those relieved were ordered to report to the agency’s
main office for reassignment.
o Only few complied, so those who failed to comply were
placed on AWOL status.
o OSA claimed it complied with the Labor Code
provisions, and in support thereof, it submitted the
Quitclaim and Waiver of 34 complainants.
o It further alleged that complainants who rendered
overtime work as shown by their time sheets were paid
accordingly, that service incentive leaves not availed of,
and that night shift differential, rest days, and holidays
were paid in cash.
 Several complainants withdrew their complaints. However,
numerous complainants eventually repudiated their quitclaim
and waiver.
o They alleged that management pressured them to sign
documents which they were not allowed to read and that
if such waiver existed, they did not have any intention of
waiving their rights under the law.
 On March 20, 1987, Regional Director Luna Piezas issued
an order in favor of the respondents, ordering OSA to pay
monetary award within 15 days from receipt of decision.
 Upon MR (which the Undersecretary treated as an appeal)
filed by the remaining 15 complainants, Undersecretary
Dionisio De la Serna affirmed the RD’s decision with
modifications.
o Undersecretary extended the monetary award to 3 years
from the time of the filing of the complaint without any
qualification.
o He also ordered the reinstatement of the respondents to
their former positions without loss of seniority rights
plus backwages from the time of their relief from work
until their actual reinstatement.
 Thus, this petition.
Issues:
1. W/N OSA was deprived of due process of law (NO)
2. W/N the Regional Director and the Undersecretary of
DOLE have jurisdiction over respondents’ claim (YES)
Held:
1. NO, OSA was not denied due process.
 There is no denial of due process where a party is given
an opportunity to be heard and present his case.
 The requirements of due process are satisfied when the
parties are given an opportunity to submit position papers.
 Since OSA participated in the hearings, submitted a
 position paper, and filed a motion for reconsideration of employer-employee relationship, and the findings of
the Undersecretary’s decision, it was not denied due the regional office is not contested by the employer
process. concerned.
 Moreover, OSA is estopped from questioning the alleged
2. YES, the DOLE Regional Director and Undersecretary have lack of jurisdiction of the Regional Director over the
jurisdiction over claims. respondents’ claims.
 The Regional Director and the Undersecretary did have o OSA submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional
jurisdiction over the respondents’ complaint which was Director by taking part in the hearings before him and
originally for violation of labor standards (Art. 128[b], by submitting a position paper.
Labor Code). Only later did the guards ask for backwages o When the RD issued his March 20, 1987 order
on account of their alleged constructive dismissal. Once requiring petitioner to pay the respondents the
vested, that jurisdiction continued until the entire benefits they were claiming, OSA was silent. Only
controversy was decided. the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration.
 Under Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code as amended by o It was only after the Undersecretary modified the
EO 111, the Regional Directors, in representation of the order of the RD that OSA moved for reconsideration
Secretary of Labor and notwithstanding the grant of and questioned the jurisdiction of the public
exclusive original jurisdiction to Labor Arbiters by respondents to hear and decide the case.
Article 217 of the Labor Code, have power to hear cases o The principle of jurisdiction by estoppel bars it from
involving violations of labor standards provisions of the doing this.
Labor Code or other legislation discovered in the course
of normal inspection, and order compliance therewith,
provided that: (1) the alleged violations of the employer
involve persons who are still his employees, i.e., not
dismissed, and (2) the employer does not contest the
findings of the labor regulations officer or raise issues
which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary
matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of
inspection.
 Hence, under the present rules, a Regional Director
exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over
labor standards cases, and is therefore empowered to
adjudicate money claims, provided there still exists an