Case Digest: Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Hon. Dela Serna, G.R. No. 88538, April 25, 1990

 Labor Law | Art. 128

Facts:

  • Aboitiz Shipping Employees Association filed a complaint against the Aboitiz Shipping Corporation for non-compliance with mandated minimum wage rates and allowances. The company contested the complaint, arguing that the union had no legal capacity to sue due to a pending representation issue.
  • The Regional Director conducted hearings and repeatedly directed the company to present relevant employment records. Despite notices, the company failed to comply fully. 
  • Regional Director: Directed the company to pay the complainants a total amount of P1,350,828.00, representing underpayment of a daily allowance of P2.00 per day from February 16, 1982, to February 15, 1985.
  • Secretary of Labor and Employment: Dismissed the appeal.
  • Contention: The Labor Arbiter, not the Regional Director, had jurisdiction over money claims
Issue:
WoN the respondent Regional Director, correctly assumed jurisdiction over the money claims filed with him by the complainants. YES

Held:

Pertinent to the issue at bar are Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by Sections 2 and 9 of Republic Act 6715 approved on 2 March 1989.

It should be pointed out that, following the ruling in Briad Agro vs. Dela Cerna, and L.M. Camus Engineering vs. Secretary of Labor, the above-cited amendments, being curative in nature, have retroactive effect and, thus, find application in the instant case.

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).

In the absence of any of the requisites above enumerated, it is the Labor Arbiter who shall have exclusive original 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.

This power of the Regional Directors qualified under R.A. 6715 is recognized in the modificatory resolution dated 9 November 1989 in said Briad Agro vs. Dela Cerna which modified the earlier decision therein dated 29 June 1989. 

In view of the enactment of R.A. 6715, and the modificatory resolution in the Briad Agro case, the ruling in Zambales Base Metals, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor, is no longer applicable.

In the case at bar, it is noted that in the Order dated 13 October 1988 of the Regional Director, the latter found each of the seven hundred seventeen (717) complainants entitled to a uniform amount of P1,884.00. (Rollo, pp. 11 7-131,). 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.

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, those covering the period from 16 February 1982 to 31 December 1985. Therefore, petitioner was not denied due process of law.

We also do not agree with the petitioner's allegation that it was improper for the respondent Regional Director to order in the questioned Order dated 13 October 1988, 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.

Petitioner also claims that the complaint filed against it should have been dismissed outright, considering the compromise agreement dated 24 July 1986, which purportedly contains the agreement of the parties therein to dismiss the cases filed by one against the other. 

We find no merit in said contention, in the light of the Regional Director's finding that the said agreement can not bind the complainant-union vis-a-vis the instant claims, for the reason that it was entered into by one Mr. Elizardo Manuel in his personal capacity, one Luis M. Moro, Jr. representing Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, and Atty. Luis D. Flores in his capacity as legal counsel of ASEA-CLO, which finding is supported by the records of the case before us. Such records show that the compromise agreement primarily binds only the said Mr. Manuel, and that, therefore, it has nothing to do with the rest of the other complainant-union members.

Considering the terms of the said compromise agreement, we rule that said Mr. Manuel shall be excluded from the list of complainants who shall receive money awards from the petitioner.

Finally, petitioner Avers: that the award of P1,350,828.00. is without factual and legal basis; that petitioner did not commit any labor standards violation pursuant to the DOLE inspection results and the union certification to that effect; and that 291 of the 717 complainants are non-employees of petitioner, and that the other 136 of the said 717 commenced employment only after February 1982. hence, not entitled to receive money awards. The foregoing contentions being evidentiary in nature, we have to respect the factual findings of public respondents regarding the above-cited petitioner's averments, the long-settled rule being that factual findings of labor officials are, generally, conclusive and binding on this Court when supported by substantial evidence. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more