GR 101250; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101250 November 20, 1992
CAÑOS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. and AVELYN B. ANTONIO, petitioners, vs. HON. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO (Undersecretary of Labor) and EMMA TRAZO, HELEN ALLOREZ (ALBORES), NIMFA SANTOS, JOY CASAMAYOR, ARACELI ZAMORA, CORAZON IYOG, MARIA FE TIMSON, JOAN GELBOLINGO, ERLINDA REYES, SUSAN MALACAD, VIRGINIA BUERA, GLORIA RUIZ, LELA MAE TABANAO, JULIETO TRAZO, VERGENIO FLORENTINO, ALBERT DABALOS, NAILA LU, GEORGINA JUSTIMBASTE, CATHERINE PARAS, EVANGELISTA AQUINO, NIMFA RODRIGUEZ, FELIPE DATULAYTA, CORAZON DINO, DOMINGA CHATTO, MARIA FE UY, ABUNDIO CHATTO, LUZVIMINDA CHATTO, ELEN BARINGUE, ANTONIO ESTENZO and PRINCE PARAISO, respondents.
FACTS
Thirty rank-and-file employees of Caños Medical Center (CMC) filed a complaint with DOLE Regional Office No. XI for non-compliance with Republic Act No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act). A routine inspection on April 19, 1990, revealed violations of labor standards laws, including underpayment of wages and 13th month pay, and non-integration of emergency cost of living allowance. During summary hearings on these findings, the employees were retrenched. CMC admitted non-compliance. Based on CMC’s records, a DOLE inspector computed the total claims of the thirty employees at P877,804.02 for wage differential, cost of living allowance, holiday pay, incentive pay, and 13th month pay from July 1, 1987, to July 1990. The Regional Director ordered CMC to pay the amounts. CMC filed a motion for reconsideration, assailing the Regional Director’s jurisdiction. The DOLE Undersecretary dismissed the motion. CMC’s first petition to the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 98174 ) was dismissed for procedural non-compliance. CMC filed this new petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the DOLE Regional Director and the Undersecretary of Labor had jurisdiction over the complaint for violation of labor standards laws where the monetary claims of each of the private respondents exceed P5,000.00.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the assailed orders of the DOLE Undersecretary. The Court ruled that pursuant to the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 6715 (effective March 21, 1989) to Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Regional Director is empowered to hear and decide money claims only if the aggregate claim of each employee does not exceed P5,000.00. For claims exceeding P5,000.00, jurisdiction pertains to the Labor Arbiter. In this case, (1) the workers’ claims arose after R.A. No. 6715 took effect; (2) each claim exceeded P5,000.00; (3) the claimants did not seek reinstatement; and (4) the claims were contested by the employer. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter, not the Regional Director, had jurisdiction. The Court directed the public respondents to refer the workers’ money claims to the NLRC for proper determination by the appropriate Labor Arbiter.