67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Respectivel

260 Phil. 730

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 85934, January 30, 1990 ]
SSK PARTS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. TEODORICO CAMAS AND SECRETARY OF LABOR &
EMPLOYMENT, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:
Camas filed a complaint for illegal deduction, underpayment of wages, non-payment of legal
holiday pay and service incentive leave filed by the union in behalf of its members; and (3) for non-
payment of employees service incentive leave, underpayment of allowance, overtime pay, premium pay,
and non-payment of two regular holidays. The Regional Director decided in favor of Camas, however, the
petitioner appealed contending that the Regional Director has no jurrisdiction over the Camass claims.

ISSUE:
Is the petitioners contention correct?

HELD:
No. The jurisdiction of the Regional Director over claims for violation of labor standards is conferred
by Article 128-B of the Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 111 which provides that:
"(b) The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the
relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing,
compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the
findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to
issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases
where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be
resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of
inspections."
G.R. No. 82607
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 82607, July 12, 1990 ]
STAR SECURITY AND DETECTIVE INVESTIGATION AGENCY, PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY
OF LABOR, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR, REGIONAL DIRECTOR DAVID KONG, JR. AND THELMA
CUERDA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:
Private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for underpayment of minimum wage,
emergency cost of living allowance, non-payment of 13th month pay, regular holiday pay, rest day pay
and service incentive leave pay. Thereafter, the Regional Director decided in favor of the private
respondent and awarded P18,394.96. Petitioner appealed contending that the regional Director has no
jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regional Director of the Department of Labor acted within the bounds of his
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the complaint?

HELD:
We find that the Regional Director had no jurisdiction over the case at bar.
It can be gleaned from the complaint filed by private respondent Cuerda that she was relieved of her
employment due to her expired license and as found by public respondent Secretary of Labor, Cuerda did
not seek reinstatement but just wanted to press her claim for the benefits and separation pay. Also, the
amount involved in this case is more than five thousand pesos (P5,000). All these factors taken into
consideration, We find that the claims should have been filed with the labor arbiter.
263 Phil. 613
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 85840, April 26, 1990 ]
SERVANDO'S INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION VI, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the 23 August 1988 order of the Secretary of Labor,
sustaining the Director of the Department of Labor and Employment, Region VI, in holding herein
petitioner company liable to fifty four (54) of its employees in the aggregate amount of P964,952.50,
representing their alleged wage differentials.

ISSUE:
whether or not the Regional Director has the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving
recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits of workers and employees.

HELD:
The power then of the Regional Director (under the present state of the law) to adjudicate
employees' money claims is subject to the concurrence of all the requisites provided under Sec. 2 of RA
6715, 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 househelperdoes not exceed
P5,000.00.
Going over the records of this case, we note that the aggregate claims of each of the fifty four (54)
employees of herein petitioner are over and above the amount of P5,000.00. Under the circumstances,
the power to adjudicate such claims belongs to the Labor Arbiter who has the execlusive jurisdiction over
employees' claims where the aggregate amount of the claim for each employee exceeds P5,000.00.
263 Phil. 487
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 88538, April 25, 1990 ]
ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; HON. LUNA C. PIEZAS, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT; AND, ABOITIZ SHIPPING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS

FACTS:
A complaint was filed by the Aboitiz Shipping Employees Association against Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation for non-compliance of the mandated minimum wage rates and allowances. Accordingly, the
Labor Regulation Officers of the Regional Office a quo inspected the respondent's employment records.
Thereafter, the regional director rendered its decision in favor of the complainants, ordering the petitioner
to pay the 717 complainants P1,884 each. Petitioner appealed contending that it is the Labor Arbiter, not
the Regional Director who has jurisdiction over money claims.

ISSUE:
Is the petitioners contention correct?

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 which read as follows:
"Article 129. Recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits. - Upon complaint of any
interested party, the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment or any of the duly
authorized hearing officers of the Department is empowered, through summary proceeding and after due
notice, to hear and decide any matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and
benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or person employed in domestic or household
service or househelper under this Code, arising from employer-employee relations: Provided, that such
complaint does not include a claim for reinstatement: Provided, further, That the aggregate money claims
of each employee or househelper do not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).
334 Phil. 97
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 89894, January 03, 1997 ]
M. RAMIREZ INDUSTRIES V. SOLE

FACTS:
Carolyn Alfonso and 260 other employees filed a complaint with the Regional Office No. VII of the
Department of Labor in Cebu City, alleging non-payment of minimum wage, living allowances and non-
compliance with other labor standard laws against M. Ramirez Industries. On June 11, 1986, petitioner
filed a motion to remand the case to the National Labor Relations Commission, contending that the matter
was outside the jurisdiction of the Regional Director. Without acting on the motion, the Regional Director
on July 18, 1986 ordered petitioner to pay private respondents the total amount of P430,901.75.

ISSUE:
Is the contention of the petitioner correct?

HELD:
The contention has no merit. It is true that on April 1, 1986, when this case was filed in the
Regional Office, Labor Arbiters had original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers
pursuant to Art. 217(a)(3) of the Labor Code as quoted above. On March 3, 1987, however, President
Corazon C. Aquino, issued E.O. No. 111, conferring jurisdiction over money claims of laborers on Regional
Directors, concurrently with Labor Arbiters.
261 Phil. 1049

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 82488, February 28, 1990 ]

ATILANO VS. DE LA SERNA

FACTS:

Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioner alleging violations of labor standard laws on
minimum wages, allowances, 13th month pay, overtime pay and unpaid wages. Thereafter, petitioner
promised to pay the unpaid wages. Consequently, the regional director of LSW ordered that petitioner
shall pay the complainants in regards the violations of labor standards, petitioner, however, alleged that
the same was settled by the quitclaims and release papers signed by the complainants that emboies a
compromise agreement. The latter, in an answer to the allegation contended that the quitclaims and
release papers referred to by were intended to support the dismissal of the case involving the unpaid
wages.

ISSUE:
Does the quitclaim papers emboies a compromise agreement?
HELD:

No. The quitclaim papers which petitioner alleges embodied a compromise or settlement
agreement were in any case not duly executed, that is, they were not signed in the presence of the
Regional Director or his duly authorized representative, in disregard of the requirements of Section 8, Rule
II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, which provide that:

"Section 8. Compromise Agreement. Should the party arrive at an agreement as to the whole or part of
the dispute, said agreement shall be reduced [to] writing and signed by the parties in the presence of the
regional director or his duly authorized representative."
278 Phil. 747

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 96169, September 24, 1991 ]

EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER VS. NATIONAL WAGES AND

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION AND REGIONAL TRIPARTITE WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY
BOARD-NCR, TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS

FACTS:
ECOP questioned the validity of the wage order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Board dated October 23, 1990 pursuant to the authority granted by RA 6727. The wage order
increased the minimum wage by P17.00 daily in the National Capital Region.
The wage order is applied to all workers and employees in the private sector of an increase of P
17.00 including those who are paid above the statutory wage rate. ECOP appealed with the NWPC but
dismissed the petition.
The Solicitor General in its comment posits that the Board upon the issuance of the wage order
fixed minimum wages according to the salary method. Petitioners insist that the power of RTWPB was
delegated, through RA 6727, to grant minimum wage adjustments and in the absence of authority, it can
only adjust floor wages.

ISSUE:
Is the wage order valid?

HELD:
Yes. There are two ways of fixing wage - the floor wage method and the salary ceiling method.
Thefloor wage method involves the fixing of determinate amount that would be added to the prevailing
statutoryminimum wage, while the salary ceiling method involves the application of the wage adjustment
toemployees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling.
339 Phil. 40

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 111722, May 27, 1997 ]

ALPHA INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY AGENCY, INC. (AISA), PETITIONER, VS. NLRC

FACTS:
Private respondents were hired as security guards by AISA. Five months later, 43 security guards
filed before the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint against
AISA for non-compliance with the current minimum wage order. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter rendered
its decision ordering both AISA and Don Mariano Marcos State University(DMMSU) to pay the complainants
their salary differential. However, AISA appealed contending that payment of the wage increases under the
current minimum wage order should be borne exclusively by DMMSU.

ISSUE:
May the principal of a security service agreement be held jointly and severally liable with the
contractor for non-payment of the minimum wage?

HELD:
Yes. AISA's solidary liability for the amounts due the security guards finds support in Articles 106 of
the Labor Code which provides that in the event that the contractor or sub-contractor fails to pay the
wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable
with his contractor or sub-contractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the
contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
255 Phil. 459

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 81314, May 18, 1989 ]

EAGLE SECURITY AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

FACTS:

Private respondents filed a complaint against Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.,(PTSI) and Eagle
Security Agency, Inc.(Eagle) for unpaid wage and allowance increases. Thereafter, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision ordering PTSI and Eagle to pay jointly and severally the private respondents.
Petitioner PTSI assailed the decision, alleging that the payment of wage and allowance increases should be
borne exclusively by EAGLE, the latter on the other hand contended that under the wage orders, PTSI
should be held liable for the same.

ISSUE:
Should PTSI and Eagle be held liable for the wage and allowance increases?

HELD:
Yes. The contractor is made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. The principal, on the
other hand, is made the indirect employer of the contractor's employees for purposes of paying the
employees their wages should the contractor be unable to pay them. This joint and several liability
facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers' performance of any work, task, job or project, thus
giving the workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution