PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
CIRINEO
BOWLING PLAZA, INC.,
Petitioner,
-versus-
G.R.
No. 146572
January
14, 2005
GERRY
SENSING, BELEN FERNANDEZ, MIRASOL DIAZ, MARGARITA ABRIL, DARIO BENITEZ,
MANUEL BENITEZ, RONILLO TANDOC, EDGAR DIZON, JOVELYN QUINTO, KAREN
REMORAN, JENIFFER RINGOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and COURT
of APPEALS,
Respondents.
|
D
E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before
us is a special civil action for
Certiorari
filed by petitioner assailing the Resolution[1] dated August 31, 2000
of the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed petitioner’s Petition for
Certiorari; and the Resolution[2] dated November 10, 2000 which denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The
antecedent facts are as follows:
On
November 27, 1995, Eligio Paolo, Jr., an employee of petitioner, filed
a letter complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE
for short), Dagupan District Office, Dagupan City, requesting for the
inspection/investigation of petitioner for various labor law violations
like underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, non-payment of rest day
pay, overtime pay, holiday pay and service incentive leave pay.[3]
Pursuant to the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, his duly authorized representative under Article
128 of the Labor Code, as amended, conducted inspections on
petitioner’s establishment the following day. In his inspection
report,[4] Labor and Employment Officer III, Crisanto Rey Dingle, found
that petitioner has thirteen[5] employees and had committed the
following violations: underpayment of minimum wage, 13th month pay,
holiday premiums, overtime premiums, and non-payment of rest day. The
findings in the inspection report were explained to petitioner’s
officer-in-charge, Ma. Fe Boquiren, who signed the same.
The
first hearing of the case was scheduled on December 27, 1995, but
petitioner failed to appear, thus, the hearing was reset to January 10,
1996. On the date set, Boquiren, as petitioner’s representative,
appeared with the information that petitioner’s President/General
Manager Luisito Cirineo was sick and confined in a hospital.
On the
January 19, 1996 hearing, Cirineo appeared and asked for more time to
settle with his employees. The case was again set on January 26,
1996 but Cirineo failed to appear.
On
April 22, 1996, an Order[6] was issued by the DOLE Regional Office, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered and considering further that the amount computed
constitutes part of the lawful remunerations of thirteen affected
employees, respondent is hereby ordered to pay them the total amount of
THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS AND 58/100.
(P377,500.58), representing their unpaid/underpaid wages, 13th
month pay, holiday premiums, rest day pay and overtime premiums
distributed as follows:
NAME
AMOUNT
1.
Gerry
Sensing
P 9,505.68
2.
Belen
Fernandez
14,258.52
3.
Mirasol
Diaz
12,458.52
4.
Margarita
Abril
31,557.12
5.
Lamberto
Solano
53,151.12
6.
Dario
Benitez
53,151.12
7.
Manuel
Benitez
53,151.12
8.
Ronillo
Tandoc
36,951.12
9.
Edgar
Dizon
14,637.78
10.
Jovelyn
Quinto
22,769.88
11.
Karen
Remoran
21,387.78
12.
Jennifer
Ringor
37,304.82
13.
Eligio Paolo,
Jr.
12,810.00
TOTAL
P
373,094.58
and to
submit the proof of payment to this Office within ten (10) days from
receipt hereof. Otherwise, a Writ of Execution will be issued to
enforce this order.
Respondent
is further ORDERED to adjust the salaries of its employees to the
applicable daily minimum wages and to submit the proof thereof within
the same period.
SO
ORDERED.[7]
copy
of which was received by petitioner’s counsel on May 17, 1996. No
motion for reconsideration or appeal memorandum was filed by petitioner.
On May
27, 1996, petitioner’s representative, Carmen Zapata, appeared before
the DOLE Regional Office and submitted the quitclaims, waivers and
releases of employees-awardees, Lamberto Solano, Jovelyn Quinto, Manuel
Benitez, Edgar Dizon, Ronillo Tandoc, Eligio Paolo, Jr.,
and Dario Benitez. Later, however, Benitez, Tandoc,
Quinto and Dizon wrote DOLE a letter denying having received any amount
from petitioner. Thus, DOLE’s inspector Dingle went to petitioner’s
establishment to confirm the authenticity of the quitclaims and
releases and talked to the employees concerned who stated that they
signed the document without knowing its contents but they are willing
to settle if they will be given the amount computed by DOLE.
On
June 19, 1996, Luisito Cirineo and a certain Fe Cirineo Octaviano,
owner of Esperanza Seafoods Kitchenette stationed in petitioner’s
establishment, wrote DOLE a letter requesting that the case be endorsed
to the National Labor Relations Commission since the resolution of the
case required evidentiary matters not disclosed or verified in the
normal course of inspection. They also submitted documents to show that
petitioner and Esperanza Seafoods Kitchenette are separate and distinct
business entities and that some of the employees-awardees are actually
employees of the Esperanza Seafoods Kitchenette.
On
September 12, 1996, DOLE issued its Order[8] stating among others:
Records show that
respondent, Luisito Cirineo and his representative appeared before this
Office during the summary investigation of this instant case but they
never once mentioned the issue of separate juridical
personalities. Respondent had always been bent on settling the
respective claims of all thirteen (13) concerned employees. In the
process, however, he acknowledged being their employer. He cannot
at this juncture therefore say, that some of the awardees in our ORDER
are employees of another business entity. This being the case, we
cannot grant his request for indorsement to the NLRC.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the case of employees Eligio Paolo, Jr. and
Lamberto Solano whose respective claims had been settled by respondent
is hereby DISMISSED. The ORDER for the payment of the monetary
claims of the eleven (11) other cash awardees STANDS. Let execution
follow immediately.[9] (Emphasis supplied)
On
October 21, 1996, DOLE Regional Director Maximo B. Lim issued a writ of
execution.[10] On November 13, 1996, petitioner filed a motion to
quash[11] the writ of execution alleging the following grounds:
I.
The Writ of Execution seeks to satisfy the monetary awards given to
employees who are not employees of Cirineo Bowling Plaza, Inc.
II.
The Writ of Execution seeks to satisfy monetary awards given to
employees of Fe Esperanza C. Octaviano who was not impleaded.
III.
The Writ of Execution seeks to satisfy monetary awards wrongfully given
to employees employed by establishments employing less than ten (10)
employees, who are not for this reason entitled to holiday and holiday
premium pay, nor to underpayment of wages.
IV.
The Writ of Execution seeks to satisfy the award of benefits in excess
of the jurisdictional amount allowed by law.
V.
The Writ of Execution seeks to enforce an Order issued beyond the
quasi-judicial authority of the Regional Director[12].
In an
Order[13] dated February 7, 1997, DOLE Regional Director Lim denied
petitioner’s motion to quash the writ of execution.
Petitioner
filed its Memorandum of Appeal to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment[14] who dismissed the appeal on the ground that same was
filed out of time.[15] On motion for reconsideration, the appeal was
granted and the appeal was given due course.
However,
on March 30, 1999, DOLE Undersecretary Jose Español dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the order dated February 7, 1997 of the DOLE
Regional Director with the following disquisitions:
In support
thereof, respondent alleges that it had only eight (8) employees as the
“other claimants of labor benefits.are employees of Fe Esperanza
Octaviano doing business under the name and style “Esperanza Seafoods
Kitchenette.” Thus, it points out that:
.
Hence,
under the Labor Code, Article 94 thereof the employees of the appellant
are not entitled to holiday pay and holiday premium pay.
Under
Republic Act 6727 and its Implementing Rules, Chapter 1, Section 1
thereof, establishments employing less than ten (10) employees are
exempted from compliance with minimum wage rates. Hence, the wages
given to respondents do not constitute under payments. As to their
claims for overtime pay and rest day pay, there is no proof that
respondents rendered overtime or restday work, hence they are not
entitled to the same. (Cagampanan vs. NLRC, 195 SCRA 533)
We do
not agree.
The
records show that during the summary investigation respondent never
refuted the findings of the labor inspector particularly the identity
of the thirteen (13) concerned employees nor raised the issue of
separate juridical personalities of respondent Cirineo and Esperanza
Seafoods Kitchenette. Thus, in the Order dated 07 February 1997, the
Regional Director ruled:
Respondent’s actuation during and after the summary investigation
disclosed that it was bent on settling all the claims of the
claimant-awardees and never did it refute the identity of the concerned
awardees. Otherwise, respondent could have easily raised the issue by
admitting evidence such as payrolls, daily time records and any similar
document which could have pinpointed the real employer of the claimants.
The
documents submitted to this Office by respondent could be interpreted
as a desperate attempt to mislead this Office and to evade liability.
On the
issue of jurisdiction, we rule that the Regional Director has
jurisdiction over the instant case.
The
old rule limiting the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or his duly authorized representatives to money claims not
exceeding P5,000.00 has been repealed by the passage of
R.A. 7730
, Section 1 of which reads:
Section 1.
Paragraph (b) of Article 128 of the
Labor Code
. as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
Art.
128. Visitorial and Enforcement Power.
(b)
Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to
the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee
still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representative shall have the power to issue compliance
orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code
and other labor legislation based on the finding of the labor
employment and enforcement officer or industrial safety engineers made
in the course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized
representatives shall 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 employment and
enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs
which were not considered in the course of inspection.
Pursuant
to R.A. 7730, the jurisdictional limitations imposed by Article 129 on
the visitorial and enforcement powers of this Office under Article 128
of the Labor Code, have been repealed. The phrase
“notwithstanding the provision of Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor
Code to the contrary,” erases all doubts as to the amendatory nature of
R.A. 7730
. The amendment, in effect, overturned the rulings in the
Aboitiz and Servandos cases insofar as the restrictive effect of
Article 129 on the use of the power under Article 128 is concerned.
Indeed,
the Supreme Court in Nazareno Furniture vs. Hon. Secretary of Labor and
Employment and Tomas Mendoza (G.R. No. 128546, April 30, 1997), already
ruled that:
Petitioner is
incorrect in stating that R.A. 7730 did not specifically amend Art. 217
of the Labor Code. In fact, it is plainly stated that the
amendment applies notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and
217 to the contrary. Even if Article 217 confers original and exclusive
jurisdiction over cases such as the one subject of this petition, this
has been modified by the later enactment of
R.A. 7730
.”[16]
Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated April 18,
2000.[17]
Petitioner
filed a petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of
temporary restraining order with the CA.
On
August 31, 2000, the CA dismissed the petition for failure of
petitioner to (1) attach a copy of the letter complaint filed by
petitioner’s employees and the Order dated February 7, 1997 of the DOLE
Regional Director and (2) state the material date when the assailed
Orders/Resolutions were received pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 65 and
Section 3 of Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied by the CA on
November 10, 2000, copy of which was received by petitioner on November
24, 2000.
Petitioner
comes to us by way of a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 raising
the sole issue:
PUBLIC RESPONDENT
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE INSTANT PETITION AND
OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO
MERE TECHNICALITIES.
Respondents
did not file their comment on the petition.
We
dismiss the petition.
We
find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA in issuing the
assailed resolutions. The CA dismissed the petition for Certiorari for
failure of petitioner to attach certain documents and to state the
material date. While petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration,
attaching the required documents, the CA correctly found that it still
did not state the material date when it received the DOLE’s Resolution
dated April 18, 2000 denying its motion for reconsideration. Thus,
without the date of receipt of the denial of such motion, the CA could
not determine whether the petition was filed within the reglementary
period of sixty days for filing the petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by SC Circular No. 39-98, in
original actions for Certiorari filed with the CA, the petition must
include the following material dates, to wit:
Section 3.
Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with
requirements.-
x x x
In
actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the
material dates showing when the notice of the judgment or final order
or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial
or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial
thereof was received.
x x x
The
failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition.
It
bears stressing that the timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory
requirement, which cannot be trifled with as a “mere technicality” to
suit the interest of a party. The rules on periods for filing
appeals are to be observed religiously, and parties who seek to avail
themselves of the privilege must comply with the rules.[18] The failure
to perfect an appeal as required by law renders the judgment final and
executory.[19]
While
there are exceptional cases where we set aside procedural defects to
correct a patent injustice, there should be an effort on the part of
the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply
with the rules.[20] It appears that petitioner’s new counsel failed to
state the material date twice, first in its petition filed with the CA
and, second, in its motion for reconsideration. Petitioner’s
explanation focused on the fact that its President, Luisito Cirineo,
only learned of the DOLE’s denial of its motion for reconsideration on
August 1, 2000 when he came back from a trip from Europe; that efforts
to communicate with its former counsel remained futile. We find such
explanation unsatisfactory since the material dates can easily be
verified from the files of the DOLE office.
Even
if we disregard technicality, we find the arguments raised by
petitioner without merit. As correctly held by the DOLE Regional
Director and sustained by the DOLE Undersecretary, records show that
petitioner never refuted the findings of the labor inspector as to the
identity of the thirteen employees nor raised the issue of separate
juridical personalities of petitioner Cirineo and Esperanza
Seafoods Kitchenette during the investigation and on the hearings
conducted.
Likewise,
we sustain the jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional Director. The
visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional Director to
order and enforce compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised
even where the individual claim exceeds P5,000.00.[21] In Allied
Investigation Bureau, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[22]
we elucidated:
Petitioner argues
that the power to adjudicate money claims belongs to the Labor Arbiter
who has exclusive jurisdiction over employees’ claims where the
aggregate amount of the claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.00; and,
that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over all other claims arising
from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in
domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
Petitioner’s
arguments are untenable.
While
it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor
Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate
money claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.00, said provisions of law
do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of
the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives.
Rather,
said powers are defined and set forth in Article 128 of the Labor Code
(as amended by R.A. No. 7730) thus:
Art. 128.
Visitorial and enforcement power. –
(a)
The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives,
including labor regulation officers, shall have access to employer’s
records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is
being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question
any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be
necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement
of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and regulations
issued pursuant thereto.
(b)
Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to
the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee
exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give
effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor
legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement
officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of
inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives
shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer
contests the finding of the labor employment and enforcement officer
and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not
considered in the course of inspection.
An
order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment under this article may be appealed to the
latter. In case said order involved a monetary award, an appeal
by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent to the
monetary award in the order appealed from.
The
aforequoted provision explicitly excludes from its coverage Articles
129 and 217 of the Labor Code by the phrase “(N)otwithstanding the
provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary.”
thereby retaining and further strengthening the power of the Secretary
of Labor or his duly authorized representative to issue compliance
orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of said Code
and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor
employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made
in the course of inspection.
In the
case at bar, the Office of respondent Regional Director conducted
inspection visits at petitioner’s establishment on February 9 and 14,
1995 in accordance with the above-mentioned provision of law. In
the course of said inspection, several violations of the labor standard
provisions of the Labor Code were discovered and reported by Senior
Labor Enforcement Officer Eduvigis A. Acero in his Notice of Inspection
Results. It was on the bases of the aforesaid findings (which
petitioner did not contest), that respondent Regional Director issued
the assailed Order for petitioner to pay private respondents the
respective wage differentials due them.
Clearly,
as the duly authorized representative of respondent Secretary of Labor,
and in the lawful exercise of the Secretary’s visitorial and
enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code, respondent
Regional Director had jurisdiction to issue his impugned Order.
In a
recent case, the Supreme Court ruled in this wise:
Assailed in this
special civil action for Certiorari is the Order dated August 1, 1995
issued by public respondent Regional Director Romeo A. Young of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in Case No.
NCROO-9503-IS-035, ordering petitioner Lord and Lady Salon to pay
private respondent Ateldo Barroga the sum of P14,099.05 representing
his underpaid wages and premium pay for work on holidays. This
suit is an offshoot of the complaint for payment of salary
differentials filed by private respondent against petitioner on March
20, 1995. Upon investigation conducted by public respondent’s office,
petitioner was found to have committed the following violations: (1)
underpayment of wages, (2) non-implementation of premium pay for worked
legal holidays, and (3) non-availability of records at the time of
inspection. Consequent to the parties’ failure to reach an
amicable settlement, public respondent issued the assailed
resolution. Petitioner asserts that public respondent exceeded
his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the complaint and ordering the
payment of P14,099.05 to private respondent because the award of the
latter amount goes over the jurisdictional amount of P5,000.00 for
cases filed before the Regional Director, thus, is properly cognizable
by the Labor Arbiter instead.
We
dismiss the petition. Pursuant to Section 1 of Republic Act 7730
[Approved on June 2, 1994] which amended Article 128 (b) of the Labor
Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representative, in the exercise of their visitorial and enforcement
powers, are now authorized to issue compliance orders to give effect to
the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation
based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or
industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, sans any
restriction with respect to the jurisdictional amount of P5,000.00
provided under Article 129 and Article 217 of the Code.
The
instant case therefore falls squarely within the coverage of the
aforecited amendment as the assailed order was issued to enforce
compliance with the provisions of the Code with respect to the payment
of proper wages. Hence, petitioner’s claim of lack of
jurisdiction on the part of public respondent is bereft of merit.[23]
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO
ORDERED.
Puno,
J., (Chairman), Callejo,
Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Penned by Justice Godardo A. Jacinto with the concurrence of Justices
Rodrigo VS. Cosico and Bienvenido L. Reyes.
[2]
Id., pp. 26-27.
[3] CA
Records, p. 118.
[4]
Rollo, p. 54.
[5]
See page 3 of herein decision.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 54-56.
[7]
Id., pp. 55-56.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 57-59.
[9]
Id., p. 58.
[10]
Id., pp. 97-100.
[11]
Id., pp. 101-109.
[12]
Id., p. 101.
[13]
Id., pp. 142-152.
[14]
Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing (now Supreme Court Associate Justice).
[15]
Id., p. 121.
[16]
Id., pp. 125-126.
[17]
Id., p. 127.
[18]
Cuevas vs. Bais Steel Corporation, 391 SCRA 192.
[19]
Mabuhay vs. NLRC, 288 SCRA 1, 6.
[20]
Lapid vs. Laurea, 391 SCRA 277, 285.
[21]
Guico vs. Quisumbing, 298 SCRA 667.
[22]
319 SCRA 77.
[23]
Id., pp. 82-86.
|
chan robles virtual law library
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2006 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|