7 Jethro V SOLE
7 Jethro V SOLE
7 Jethro V SOLE
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J : p
Jethro appealed 4 to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), faulting the
Regional Director for, among other things, basing the computation of the
judgment award on Garcia's affidavit instead of on the data reflected in the
payrolls for 2001 to 2004. 5
By Decision 6 dated May 27, 2005, then SOLE Patricia A. Sto. Tomas partially
granted petitioner Jethro's appeal by affirming with modification the Regional
Director's Order dated September 9, 2004 by deleting the penalty of double
indemnity and setting aside the writs of execution and garnishment, without
prejudice to the subsequent issuance by the Regional Director of the writs
necessary to implement the said Decision.
By Decision 9 of January 24, 2006, the appellate court denied the petition, it
holding that contrary to petitioners' contention, Garcia's affidavit has probative
weight for under Art. 221 of the Labor Code, the rules of evidence are not
controlling, and pursuant to Rule V of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) Rules of Procedure, labor tribunals may accept affidavits in lieu of direct
testimony. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied by
Resolution 10 dated April 28, 2006, they filed the present petition for review
on certiorari.
Petitioners attribute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOLE Regional
Director and the SOLE in this wise: (1) the SOLE has no jurisdiction over the
case because, following Article 129 of the Labor Code, the aggregate money
claim of each employee exceeded P5,000.00; (2) petitioner Jethro, as the
admitted employer of respondents, could not be expected to keep payrolls and
daily time records in Yakult's premises as its office is in Quezon City, hence, the
inspection conducted in Yakult's plant had no basis; and (3) having filed the
required bond equivalent to the judgment award, and as the Regional Director's
Order of September 9, 2004 was not served on their counsel of record, the writs
of execution and garnishment subsequently issued were not in order.
And petitioners maintain that Garcia's affidavit should not have been given
weight, they not having been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine him.
In dismissing petitioners' petition for certiorari and thus affirming the SOLE
Decision, the appellate court did not err. The scope of the visitorial powers of the
SOLE and his/her duly authorized representatives was clarified in Allied
Investigation Bureau, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 12 viz.:
While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the
Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the
aggregate money claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.00, said
provisions do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement
powers of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives.
Rather, said powers are defined and set forth in Article 128 of the Labor
Code (as amended by R.A. No. 7730) thus:
The aforequoted [Art. 128] explicitly excludes from its coverage Articles
129 and 217 of the Labor Code by the phrase "(N)otwithstanding the
provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary . . . "
thereby retaining and further strengthening the power of the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representative to issue compliance orders to
give effect to the labor standards provisions of said Code and other labor
legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement
officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of
inspection. 13 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
In Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Laguesma case, the Court went
on to hold that TCEaDI
In the case at bar, the Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction over the
case as it does not come under the exception clause in Art. 128 (b) of the Labor
Code. While petitioner Jethro appealed the inspection results and there is a need
to examine evidentiary matters to resolve the issues raised, the payrolls
presented by it were considered in the ordinary course of inspection. While the
employment records of the employees could not be expected to be found in
Yakult's premises in Calamba, as Jethro's offices are in Quezon City, the records
show that Jethro was given ample opportunity to present its payrolls and other
pertinent documents during the hearings and to rectify the violations noted during
the ocular inspection. It, however, failed to do so, more particularly to submit
competent proof that it was giving its security guards the wages and benefits
mandated by law.
Jethro's failure to keep payrolls and daily time records in Yakult's premises was
not the only labor standard violation found to have been committed by it; it
likewise failed to register as a service contractor with the DOLE, pursuant to
Department Order No. 18-02 and, as earlier stated, to pay the wages and
benefits in accordance with the rates prescribed by law.
Respecting petitioners' objection to the weight given to Garcia's affidavit, it bears
noting that said affidavit was not the only basis in arriving at the judgment award.
The payrolls for June 16-30, 2003 and February 1-15, 2004 reveal that the
overtime rates were below the required rate. 15 That Garcia was not cross-
examined on his affidavit is of no moment. For, as Mayon Hotel and Restaurant
vs. Adana 16 instructs:
Article 221 of the Labor Code is clear: technical rules are not
binding, and the application of technical rules of procedure may be
relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand of substantial
justice. The rule of evidence prevailing in court of law or equity
shall not be controlling in labor cases and it is the spirit and
intention of the Labor Code that the Labor Arbiter shall use every
and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law
or procedure, all in the interest of due process. Labor laws mandate the
speedy administration of justice, with least attention to technicalities but
without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due
process. 17 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears noting that while Jethro claims that it did not cross-examine Garcia, the
minutes of the July 5, 2004 hearing — at which Jethro's counsel was present —
indicate that Garcia's affidavit was presented. 18 Jethro had thus the opportunity
to controvert the contents of the affidavit, but it failed.
Respecting the fact that Jethro's first counsel of record, Atty. Benjamin Rabuco
III, was not furnished a copy of the September 9, 2004 Order of the Director, the
SOLE noted in her assailed Decision that since Atty. Thaddeus Venturanza
formally entered his appearance as Jethro's new counsel on appeal — and an
appeal was indeed filed and duly verified by Jethro's owner/manager, for all
practical purposes, the failure to furnish Atty. Rabuco a copy of the said Order
had been rendered moot. For, on account of such lapse, the SOLE deleted the
double indemnity award and held that the writs issued in implementation of the
September 9, 2004 Order were null and void, "without prejudice to the
subsequent issuance by the Regional Director of the writs necessary to
implement" the SOLE Decision.
It bears emphasis that the SOLE, under Article 106 of the Labor Code, as
amended, exercises quasi-judicial power, at least to the extent necessary to
determine violations of labor standards provisions of the Code and other labor
legislation. He/she or the Regional Directors can issue compliance orders and
writs of execution for the enforcement thereof. The significance of and binding
effect of the compliance orders of the DOLE Secretary is enunciated in Article
128 of the Labor Code, as amended, viz.: HATEDC
(d)It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to obstruct, impede, delay
or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the Secretary of Labor or his
duly authorized representatives issued pursuant to the authority granted
under this article, and no inferior court or entity shall issue temporary or
permanent injunction or restraining order or otherwise assume
jurisdiction over any case involving the enforcement orders issued in
accordance with this article.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals' Decision dated
January 24, 2006 and Resolution dated April 28, 2006 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
1.Records, p. 3.
2.Id. at 67.
3.Id. at 64-67.
4.Id. at 119-124.
5.Id. at 123.
6.Id. at 188-191.
7.Id. at 211-212.
8.Id. at 217-219.
11.Cuenca v. Atas, G.R. No. 146214, October 5, 2007, 535 SCRA 48, 84.
13.Id. at 88-89.
15.Records, p. 30.
16.G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 609, 628.
17.Id. at 628.
18.Records, p. 26.
19.Records, 465-466.
*Additional member per Special Order No. 671 in lieu of Senior Associate Justice
Leonardo A. Quisumbing who is on official leave.
(Jethro Intelligence & Security Corp. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,
|||