G.R. No. 172537; August 14, 2009
JETHRO INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY CORPORATION and YAKULT PHILS., INC., Petitioners, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, FREDERICK GARCIA, GIL CORDERO, LEONIELYN UDALBE, MICHAEL BENOZA, EDWIN ABLITER, CELEDONIO SUBERE and MA. CORAZON LANUZA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jethro Intelligence and Security Corporation, a security service contractor for co-petitioner Yakult Phils., Inc., was inspected by the DOLE Regional Office following a complaint for underpayment of wages and other benefits filed by respondent security guard Frederick Garcia. The inspection revealed labor standards violations, including underpayment and non-registration under Department Order No. 18-02. Despite orders, Jethro failed to submit the required daily time records for the claimants. Consequently, the DOLE Regional Director found petitioners jointly and severally liable for wage differentials and other monetary awards totaling P809,210.16.
Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing the award was erroneously based on Garcia’s affidavit instead of submitted payrolls. The SOLE affirmed the liability but deleted the penalty of double indemnity. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied petitioners’ certiorari petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the SOLE had jurisdiction despite individual claims exceeding P5,000; (2) whether the inspection at Yakult’s premises was valid; (3) whether the writs of execution and garnishment were proper; and (4) whether Garcia’s affidavit was admissible as evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On jurisdiction, the Court clarified that the SOLE’s visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code are distinct and concurrent with the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction under Articles 129 and 217. The P5,000 threshold does not divest the SOLE of authority to issue compliance orders based on inspection findings where an employer-employee relationship exists. The inspection at Yakult’s premises was valid as the security guards were deployed there, making it a legitimate venue for checking compliance.
Regarding evidence, the Court upheld the use of Garcia’s affidavit. Labor proceedings are not strictly bound by technical rules of evidence; affidavits may be accepted under the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Petitioners’ failure to submit crucial daily time records, despite orders, justified reliance on other evidence. Finally, the issuance of writs of execution and garnishment was proper as the filing of an appeal bond and a petition for certiorari does not automatically stay execution absent a temporary restraining order, which petitioners did not secure.