GR 101501; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101501 November 20, 1992
JOSE VILLANUEVA, SR., petitioner, vs. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his capacity as the then Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor & Employment (now Department), and PEOPLE’S SECURITY, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Villanueva, Sr. filed a complaint against his employer, People’s Security, Inc., for various money claims. He alleged that from January 1974, he was made to work twelve hours daily on regular days, holidays, and rest days without proper overtime, holiday, and premium pay as required by the Labor Code. He also claimed illegal deductions from his salary for donations to families of deceased guards and for a cash/surety bond, non-payment of Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA), and underpayment of his service incentive leave pay for certain years. The private respondent countered that deductions were lawful, that Villanueva worked extra hours voluntarily on the next shift to augment his income, and that all statutory benefits had been paid. The Regional Director ordered the payment of P428 for illegal deductions, unpaid wages, and service incentive leave pay but dismissed the other claims. This order was affirmed by the Deputy Minister of Labor, prompting the petitioner to file this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the public respondent (Deputy Minister of Labor) committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of the petitioner’s other money claims.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed the principle that findings of administrative agencies like the Department of Labor and Employment are accorded respect and finality. Judicial review in such cases is limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not extend to re-evaluating the evidence. The Court found that the orders were supported by evidence on record, specifically payrolls and pay slips showing payment of the 13th month pay, living allowance, incentive leave pay, and overtime pay, and indicating that holiday and premium pays were included in the complainant’s salary.