Fermin v. Secretary of Labor and Employment
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eighty-six (86) complainants filed a complaint for non-payment/underpayment of wages, living allowances, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay against petitioner. Following an inspection, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office VI, through respondent Regional Director Henry M. Parel, issued an order directing petitioner to pay the complainants an aggregate sum of P887,719.52, representing their monetary claims over a three-year period. This order was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Procedural History: Petitioner sought reconsideration of the order, arguing lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Director and violation of due process. The Regional Director denied the motion for reconsideration. The Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed the Regional Director's order. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment affirming the orders of the Regional Director, which directed petitioner to pay the monetary claims of the complainants.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Director has jurisdiction to adjudicate employees' money claims exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee. Whether petitioner was denied due process.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order of respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment dated 6 April 1988 and the Orders of respondent Regional Director dated 2 March 1987 and 12 August 1987 in Case No. FI-310-86 are SET ASIDE. The Secretary of Labor is directed to forward the record of the case to the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Region VI for appropriate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Regional Director over money claims exceeding P5,000.00: The Court reiterated its ruling in Servando's Incorporated vs. The Secretary of Labor and Employment and its Resolution of 5 June 1991. While Executive Order No. 111 recognized concurrent jurisdiction, R.A. No. 6715, as interpreted in Servando's, clarified the limits. The power of the Regional Director to adjudicate money claims is subject to the concurrence of all requisites provided under Section 2 of R.A. 6715, which includes the condition that the aggregate money claim of each employee does not exceed P5,000.00. In this case, the aggregate claims of each complainant exceeded P5,000.00. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims belongs to the Labor Arbiter, as provided by Article 217(a)(6) and Article 129 of the Labor Code. To construe the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to include adjudicating claims exceeding P5,000.00 would emasculate the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Labor Arbiter and render Article 129 a useless surplusage. The Court emphasized that the visitorial powers are summary in nature, while proceedings before Labor Arbiters are more formal and accord with rules of evidence, justifying the distinction for substantial claims. The Court also noted that the total award was substantial and summarily decided, which, coupled with the contestation of findings, further underscored the need for formal proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. On the issue of due process: Given that the Regional Director lacked jurisdiction over the case, the Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the issue of due process, as the proceedings were void ab initio due to the jurisdictional defect.
Main Doctrine
The Regional Director, under the visitorial powers granted by Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate employees' money claims exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee. Such claims fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter as provided by Article 217(a)(6) and Article 129 of the Labor Code.