Maternity Childrens Hospital vs.

Secretary of Labor
G.R. No. 7899! "#ne $! %989
&N '(NC) M&*+(L*&(! ".
,acts)
Petitioner is a semi-government hospital, managed by the Board of Directors
of the Cagayan de Oro Women's Club and Puericulture Center, headed by
Mrs !ntera Dorado, as holdover President "he hospital derives its #nances
from the club itself as $ell as from paying patients, averaging %&' per
month (t is also partly subsidi)ed by the Philippine Charity *$eepsta+es
O,ce and the Cagayan De Oro City government Petitioner has forty-one
-.%/ employees !side from salary and living allo$ances, the employees are
given food, but the amount spent therefor is deducted from their respective
salaries On May 0&, %123, ten -%'/ employees of the petitioner employed in
di4erent capacities5positions #led a complaint $ith the O,ce of the 6egional
Director of 7abor and 8mployment, 6egion 9, for underpayment of their
salaries and 8CO7!*, $hich $as doc+eted as 6O9 Case :o CW-;%-23On
<une %3, %123, the 6egional Director directed t$o of his 7abor *tandard and
Welfare O,cers to inspect the records of the petitioner to ascertain the truth
of the allegations in the complaints Based on their inspection report and
recommendation, the 6egional Director issued an Order dated !ugust .,
%123, directing the payment of P;0&, 222=2, representing underpayment of
$ages and 8CO7!s to all the petitioner's employees Petitioner appealed
from this Order to the Minister of 7abor and 8mployment, >on !ugusto *
*anche), $ho rendered a Decision on *eptember 0., %123, modifying the
said Order in that de#ciency $ages and 8CO7!s, should be computed only
from May 0&, %12& to May 0&, %123 On October 0., %123, the petitioner
#led a motion for reconsideration $hich $as denied by the *ecretary of 7abor
in his Order dated May %&, %12;, for lac+ of merit
+ss#e)
% Whether or not the 6egional Director had ?urisdiction over the case@
0 Whether or not the 6egional Director erred in eAtending the a$ard to all
hospital employees@
H&L*)
% "he ans$er is in the a,rmative the 6egional Directors has a
?urisdiction in this labor standard case "his is 7abor *tandard case,
and is governed by !rticle %02 -b/ of the 7abor Code, as amended by
8O :o %%% B7abor standards refer to the minimum reCuirements
prescribed by eAisting la$s, rules, and regulations relating to $ages,
hours of $or+, cost of living allo$ance and other monetary and $elfare
bene#ts, including occupational, safety, and health standards -*ection
;, 6ule (, 6ules on the Disposition of 7abor *tandards Cases in the
6egional O,ce, dated *eptember %3, %12;/D
Ender the present rules, a 6egional Director eAercises both
visitorial and enforcement po$er over labor standards cases, and is
therefore empo$ered to ad?udicate money claims, provided there still
eAists an employer-employee relationship, and the #ndings of the
regional o,ce is not contested by the employer concerned We
believedFthat even in the absence of 8 O :o %%%, 6egional Directors
already had enforcement po$ers over money claims, e4ective under
PD :o 2=', issued on December %3, %1;=, $hich transferred labor
standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement
system
0 "he 6egional Director correctly applied the a$ard $ith respect to
those employees $ho signed the complaint, as $ell as those $ho did
not sign the complaint, but $ere still connected $ith the hospital at the
time the complaint $as #led "he ?usti#cation for the a$ard to this
group of employees $ho $ere not signatories to the complaint is that
the visitorial and enforcement po$ers given to the *ecretary of 7abor
is relevant to, and eAercisable over establishments, not over individual
members5employees, because $hat is sought to be achieved by its
eAercise is the observance of, and5 or compliance by such
#rm5establishment $ith the labor standards regulations >o$ever,
there is no legal ?usti#cation for the a$ard in favor of those employees
$ho $ere no longer connected $ith the hospital at the time the
complaint $as #led !rticle %01 of the 7abor Code in aid of the
enforcement po$er of the 6egional Director is not applicable $here the
employee see+ing to be paid is separated from service >is claim is
purely money claim that has to be sub?ect of arbitration proceedings
and therefore $ithin the original and eAclusive ?urisdiction of the 7abor
!rbiter