G.R. No. 88538 ; July 25, 1991
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, petitioner, vs. Hon. Dionisio C. Dela Serna, in his capacity as Undersecretary of Labor and Employment; Hon. Luna C. Piezas, in his capacity as Director, National Capital Region, Department of Labor and Employment; and Aboitiz Shipping Employees Association, respondents.

FACTS

Aboitiz Shipping Corporation filed a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court decision dated April 25, 1990, which affirmed the orders of the Undersecretary of Labor and the Regional Director. These orders directed the company to pay its employees a total of P1,350,828.00 for underpayment of daily allowances. The Regional Director had found that each of the 717 complainant employees was entitled to a uniform award of P1,884.00.
The petitioner’s principal contention was that the Regional Director lacked jurisdiction over the case. It argued that since the aggregate amount of all claims exceeded P5,000.00, the case should have been referred to a Labor Arbiter for adjudication, not the Regional Director. Petitioner also contended that the case fell under the exception clause in Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, which divests the Regional Director of jurisdiction when the employer contests the findings and raises issues requiring evidentiary matters not verifiable in a normal inspection.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the employees’ money claims, given the aggregate amount and the employer’s contest of the findings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that the controlling precedent was its recent En Banc resolution in Servando’s Incorporated vs. The Secretary of Labor and Employment. This resolution clarified that under Articles 217(a)(6) and 129 of the Labor Code, as amended, the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee. Conversely, the Regional Director is empowered to hear claims provided the aggregate amount for each individual employee does not exceed P5,000.00. Here, each employee’s claim was P1,884.00, which is within the Regional Director’s jurisdictional limit, regardless of the total sum for all employees combined.
Regarding the exception under Article 128(b), the Court held that for it to apply, three elements must concur: (1) the employer contests the labor regulation officer’s findings; (2) resolving the issues requires examining evidentiary matters; and (3) those matters are not verifiable in a normal course of inspection. The Court found these elements absent. The issues raised by Aboitiz were resolvable through evidence verifiable in an ordinary inspection, negating the need to endorse the case to the NLRC. Finally, the Court upheld the factual findings of the labor officials as supported by substantial evidence, which is generally conclusive. The motion for clarification filed by the private respondent was also denied as unnecessary.