GR 89894; (January, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 89894 January 3, 1997
M. RAMIREZ INDUSTRIES and/or MANNY RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND CAROLYN ALFONSO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner M. Ramirez Industries, a single proprietorship engaged in manufacturing rattan baskets for export, employed 400-500 workers. On April 1, 1986, Carolyn Alfonso and 260 other employees filed a complaint with the Regional Office of the Department of Labor in Cebu for non-payment of minimum wage, emergency cost of living allowances (ECOLA), and other labor standard violations. An inspection confirmed the allegations. Subsequently, many employees stopped working. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, attaching a letter of desistance allegedly signed by 215 employees.
The Regional Director denied the motion, finding that 90% of the signatures were not from the complainants and that some signatories had been deceived. The Director then proceeded to hear the case and eventually issued an order granting the monetary claims. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who affirmed the Regional Director’s order. Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of salary differentials and ECOLA to the employees.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Secretary of Labor’s orders. The Court ruled that the Regional Director had validly acquired jurisdiction over the case as it involved a claim for minimum wage and ECOLA under the labor standards provisions of the Labor Code, which falls within the enforcement authority of the Secretary of Labor and his delegates. Petitioner’s argument that the case should have been remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was rejected, as the claim was properly cognizable by the Regional Office.
On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The factual findings of the labor officials, supported by substantial evidence such as the inspection report, were accorded respect and finality. Petitioner’s belated defense that the workers were merely “learners” and not regular employees entitled to full wages was unavailing, as this factual claim was not substantiated and contradicted the labor officials’ findings. The Court emphasized that the failure to pay the statutory minimum wage and ECOLA constituted a violation of labor standards, which the Secretary of Labor is empowered to rectify.