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 fortyone (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 Directors 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 Secretary of 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 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