Aguirre, Nolaida 2011-0087 MATERNITY CHILDRENS HOSPITAL VS SECRETARY OF LABOR (Labor Law defined) G.R. No.

78909 Date: June 30, 1984 Petitioner: Maternity Childrens Hospital, represented by Antera L. Dorado Respondents: The Honorable Secretary of Labor and the Regional Director of Labor, Region X Ponente: Medialdea, J.

FACTS: Petitioner is a semi-governmental hospital in Cagayan De Oro and Employing forty-one (41) employees. Aside from salary and living allowances, the employees are given food, but the amount of which is deducted from their respective salaries. On May 3, 1986, ten (10) employees filed a complaint with the Regional Director of Labor and Employment, Region 10, for underpayment of their salaries and ECOLAS. Consequently, the Regional Director directed two of his labor standard and welfare officers to investigate and ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaint. Based on the report and recommendation, the Regional Director issued an order dated August 4, 1986, directing payment of 723, 888.58, to all the petitioners employees. The Secretary of Labor likewise affirmed the Decision and dismissed the Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioner. In a petition for certiorari, petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Regional Director and the all-embracing applicability of the award involving salary differentials and ECOLAS, in that it covers not only the hospitals employees who signed the complaints, but also those who are not signatories to the complaint, and those who were no longer in the service of the hospital at the time the complaint was filed. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case; and 2. Whether or not the Regional Director erred in extending the award to all hospital employees? HELD: 1. The answer is in the affirmative the Regional Directos has a jurisdiction in this labor standard case. This is Labor Standard case, and is governed by Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code , as amended by E.O. No. 111. Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules, and regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other monetary and welfare benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards (Section 7, Rule I, Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office, dated September 16, 1987).

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. We believedthat even in the absence of E. O. No. 111, Regional Directors already had enforcement powers over money claims, effective under P.D. No. 850, issued on December 16, 1975, which transferred labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system. 2. The Regional Director correctly applied the award with respect to those employees who signed the complaint, as well as those who did not sign the complaint, but were still connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed. The justification for the award to this group of employees who were not signatories to the complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretatry of Labor labor is relevant to, and exercisable over establishments, not over individual members/employees, because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is the observance of, and/ or compliance by such firm/establishment with the labor standards regulations. However, there is no legal justification for the award in favor of those employees who were no longer connected with the hospital t the time the complaint was filed. Article 129 of the Labor Code in aid of the enforcement power of the Regional Director is not applicable where the employee seeking to be paid is separated from service. His claim is purely money claim that has to be subject of arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.