VOL.

182, FEBRUARY 5 6 SUPREME

7, 1990 COURT REPORTS
Brokenshire Memorial ANNOTATED
Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of Brokenshire Memorial
Labor and Employment Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of
G.R. No. 74621. February 7, 1990. *
Labor and Employment
BROKENSHIRE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., have exclusive original jurisdiction over all claims arising from
petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR & em-ployer-employee relations, other than claims for employee’s
EMPLOYMENT AND BROKENSHIRE MEMORIAL compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits.
HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES AND WORKER’S UNION-FFW Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutes; Power to declare
Represented by EDUARDO A. AFUAN, respondents. unconstitu-tionality of a law is vested in the Supreme Court; The
Regional Director’s duty is merely to enforce a law which stands
Labor Standards; Jurisdiction over Money Claims; Labor valid, unless otherwise declared by the Supreme Court as
Arbiters; Regional Directors; RA 6715; RA 6715 conferred upon unconstitutional.—Anent the other issue involved in the instant case,
Regional Directors and other hearing officers of the Department of petitioner’s contention that the constitutionality of Wage Order Nos.
Labor the power to hear any claim brought before them for recovery 5 and 6 should be passed upon by the National Labor Relations
of wages, simple money claims and other benefits, subject to Commission, lacks merit. The Supreme Court is vested by the
concurrence of all requisites provided therein.—It will be observed Constitution with the power to ultimately declare a law
that what in fact conferred upon Regional Directors and other unconstitutional. Without such declaration, the assailed legislation
hearing officers of the Department of Labor (aside from the Labor remains operative and can be the source of rights and duties
Arbiters) adjudicative powers, i.e., the power to try and decide, or especially so in the case at bar when petitioner complied with Wage
hear and determine any claim brought before them for recovery of Order No. 5 by paying the claimants the total amount of
wages, simple money claims, and other benefits, is Republic Act P163,047.50, representing the latter’s minimum wage increases up to
6715, provided that the following requisites concur, to wit: 1) The October 16, 1984, instead of questioning immediately at that stage
claim is presented by an employee or person employed in domestic before paying the amount due, the validity of the order on grounds of
or household service, or househelper under the code; 2) The constitutionality. The Regional Director is plainly without the
claimant, no longer being employed, does not seek reinstatement; authority to declare an order or law unconstitutional and his duty is
and 3) The aggregate money claim of the employee or househelper merely to enforce the law which stands valid, unless otherwise
does not exceeed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00). In the absence of declared by this Tribunal to be unconstitutional. On our part, We
any of the three (3) requisites, the Labor Arbiters hereby declare the assailed Wage Orders as constitutional, there
_______________ being no provision of the 1973 Constitution (or even of both the
Freedom Constitution and the 1987 Constitution) violated by said
*
 EN BANC. Wage Orders, which Orders are without doubt for the benefit of
6 labor.

1|Page
 Same; Same; Same; Same; The Regional Director’s power to PETITION for certiorari to review the order of the Minister of
order compliance with labor standard provisions may not be Labor and Employment.
exercised where the employer questions the findings of labor
regulation officers and raises issues which require a more formal The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
and extensive proceeding before the Labor Arbiter.—Based on the      Renato B. Pagatpatan for petitioner.
foregoing considerations, it is our shared view that the findings of the
labor regulations officers may not be deemed uncontested as to bring PARAS, J.:
the case at bar within the competence of the Regional Director, as
duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to This petition for review by certiorari seeks the annulment or
Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended. Considering further that
modification of the Order of public respondent Minister of
the aggregate claims involve an amount in excess of P5,000.00, We
find it more appropriate that the issue of petitioner hospital’s liability
Labor dated December 9, 1985 in a case for non-compliance
therefor, including the proposal of petitioner that the obligation of with Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6 docketed as ROXI-LSED Case
private respondents to the former in the aggregate amount of No. 14-85 which 1) denied petitioner’s Motion for
P507,237.57 be used to offset its obligations to them, be ventilated Reconsideration dated February 3, 1986 and 2) affirmed the
and resolved, not in a summary Order of Regional Director Eugenio I. Sagmit, Jr., Regional
7 Office No. XI Davao City, dated April 12, 1985, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
VOL. 182, 7 “WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Brokenshire
FEBRUARY 7, 1990 Memorial Hospital, Incorporated is hereby ordered to pay the above-
Brokenshire Memorial named workers, through this Office, within fifteen (15) days from
Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of receipt hereof, the total sum of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR
Labor and Employment THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE (P284,625.00)
proceeding before the Regional Director under Article 128 of PESOS representing their living allowance under Wage Order No. 5
the Labor Code, as amended, but in accordance with the more formal covering the period from October 16, 1984 to February 28, 1985 and
and extensive proceeding before the Labor Arbiter. Nevertheless, it under Wage Order No. 6 effective November 1, 1984 to February 28,
should be emphasized that the amount of the employer’s liability is 1985. Respondent is further ordered to pay the employees who are
not quite a factor in determining the jurisdiction of the Regional likewise entitled to the claims here presented, but whose names were
Director. However, the power to order compliance with labor inadvertently omitted in the list and computation.” (Rollo, p. 7)
standards provisions may not be exercised where the employer 8
contends or questions the findings of the labor regulation officers and 8 SUPREME COURT
raises issues which cannot be determined without taking into account
REPORTS ANNOTATED
evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection,
as in the case at bar. Brokenshire Memorial
Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of
Labor and Employment

2|Page
Petitioner contends that the respondent Minister of Labor and After making said payment, petitioner hospital failed to
Employment acted without, or in excess of his jurisdiction or continue to comply with Wage Order No. 5 and likewise, failed
with grave abuse of discretion in failing to hold: to comply with the new Wage Order No. 6 which took effect
on November 1, 1984, prompting private respondents to file
1. “A)That the Regional Director committed against petitioner another complaint docketed as ROXI-LSED-
grave abuse of discretion in asserting exclusive 14-85, which is now the case at bar.
jurisdiction and in not certifying this case to In its answer, petitioner raised the following affirmative
the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor defenses:
Relations Commission for a full-blown hearing
on the merits; 1. 1)That the Regional Office of the Ministry of
2. “B)That the Regional Director erred in not Labor did not acquire jurisdiction over it for
ruling on the counter-claim raised by the want of allegation that it has the capacity to be
respondent (in the labor case, and now sued and
petitioner in this case); 2. 2)That Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6 are
3. “C)That the Regional Director erred in skirting nonconstitutional and
the constitutional and legal issues raised.”
(Rollo, p. 4) 9
VOL. 182, FEBRUARY 9
This case originated from a complaint filed by private 7, 1990
respondents against petitioner on September 21, 1984 with the Brokenshire Memorial
Regional Office of the MOLE, Region XI, Davao City for Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of
noncompliance with the provisions of Wage Order No. 5. After Labor and Employment
due hearing the Regional Director rendered a decision dated therefore void. Significantly petitioner never averred
No-vember 16, 1984 in favor of private respondents. Judgment anycounterclaim in its Answer.
having become final and executory, the Regional Director After the complainants had filed their reply, petitioner filed a
issued a Writ of Execution whereby some movable properties Motion for the Certification of the case to the National Labor
of the hospital (petitioner herein) were levied upon and its Relations Commission for a full-blown hearing on the matter,
operating expenses kept with the bank were garnished. The including the counterclaim interposed that the complainants
levy and garnishment were lifted when petitioner hospital paid had unpaid obligations with the Hospital which might be offset
the claim of the private respondents (281 hospital employees) with the latter’s alleged obligation to the former.
directly, in the total amount of P163,047.50 covering the period Issues having been joined, the Regional Director rendered a
from June 16 to October 15, 1984. decision on April 12, 1985 in favor of the complainants
(private respondents herein) declaring that petitioner

3|Page
(respondent therein) is estopped from questioning the Brokenshire Memorial
acquisition of jurisdiction because its appearance in the hearing Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of
is in itself submission to jurisdiction and that this case is Labor and Employment
merely a continuance of a previous case where the hospital cases, most especially the case of Briad Agro which, as will be
already willingly paid its obligations to the workers on orders seen later, was reconsidered by the court.
of the Regional Office. On the matter of the constitutionality of Contrary to the claim of petitioners that the original and
the Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6, the Regional Director declared exclusive jurisdiction over said money claims is properly
that only the court can declare a law or order unconstitutional lodged in the Labor Arbiter (relying on the case of Zambales
and until so declared by the court, the Office of the Regional Base Metals Inc. v. Minister of Labor, 146 SCRA 50) and the
Director is duly bound to enforce the law or order. Regional Director has no jurisdiction over workers’ money
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Office of the Minister claims, the Court in the three (3) cases above-mentioned ruled
of Labor, which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. A that in view of the promulgation of Executive Order No. 111,
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by said Office, the ruling in the earlier case of Zambales Base Metals is
giving rise to the instant petition reiterating the issues earlier already abandoned. In accordance with the rulings in Briad
mentioned. Agro, L.M. Camus, and Maternity Children’s Hospital, the
The crucial issue We are tasked to resolve is whether or not Regional Director exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the
the Regional Director has jurisdiction over money claims of Labor Arbiter over money claims. Thus,
workers concurrent with the Labor Arbiter. “x x x. Executive Order No. 111 is in the character of a curative law,
It is worthy of note that the instant case was deliberated that is to say, it was intended to remedy a defect that, in the opinion
upon by this Court at the same time that Briad Agro of the legislative (the incumbent Chief Executive in this case, in the
Development Corporation v. de la Cerna, G.R. No. exercise of her lawmaking power under the Freedom Constitution)
82805 and L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation v. Hon. had attached to the provision subject of the amendment. This is clear
Secretary of Labor, et al. G.R. No. 83225, promulgated on from the proviso: “The provisions of Article 217 to the contrary
June 29, 1989 and Maternity Chil-dren’s Hospital vs. Hon. notwithstanding . . .” Plainly, the amendment was meant to make
Secretary of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 78909, promulgated 30 both the Secretary of Labor (or the various Regional Directors) and
June 1989, where deliberated upon; for all three (3) cases the Labor Arbiter share jurisdiction.” (Briad Agro Dev. Corp. v. Sec.
of Labor, supra).
raised the same issue of jurisdiction of the Regional Director of
“Under the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both visi-
the Department of Labor to pass upon money claims of torial and enforcement power over labor standards cases, and is
employees. Hence, we will be referring to these therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims, provided there still
10 exists an employer-employee relationship, and the findings of the
10 SUPREME COURT regional office is not contested by the employer concerned.”
REPORTS (Maternity Children’s Hospital v. Sec. of Labor, supra).
ANNOTATED

4|Page
However, it is very significant to note, at this point, that the the National Labor Relations Commission which shall resolve the
decision in the consolidated cases of Briad Agro Development appeal within ten (10) calendar days from the submission of the last
Corp. and L.M. Camus Engineering Corp. was reconsidered pleading required or allowed under its rules.”
and set aside by this Court in a Resolution promulgated on “ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission—
Except as otherwise provided under this code, the Labor Arbiters
November 9, 1989. In view of the enactment of Republic Act
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
No. 6715, approved on March 2, 1989, the Court found that within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by
reconsideration was proper. the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of
RA 6715 amended Art. 129 and Art. 217 of the Labor Code, steno-graphic notes, the following cases involving all workers,
to whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
11
VOL. 182, FEBRUARY 11 1. “(1)Unfair labor practice cases;
7, 1990 2. “(2)Termination disputes;
Brokenshire Memorial 3. “(3)If accompanied with a claim of reinstatement,
Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of those cases that workers may file involving wages,
rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
Labor and Employment conditions of employment;
read as follows: 4. “(4)Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
“ART. 129. Recovery of wages, simple money claims and other forms of damages arising from the employer-
benefits.—Upon complaint of any interested party, the Regional employee relation;
Director of the Department of Labor and Employment or any of the 5. “(5)Cases arising from any violation of Article 264
duly authorized hearing officers of the Department is empowered, of this Code, including questions involving the
through summary proceeding and after due notice, to hear and decide legality of strikes and lockouts; and
any matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary 6. “(6)Except claims for employees compensation,
claims and benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or social security, medicare and maternity benefits, all
person employed in domestic or household service or househelper other claims arising from em-ployer-employee
under this code, arising from employer-employee relations. Provided, relations, including those of persons in domestic or
That such complaint does not include a claim for reinstatement;
Provided, further, That the aggregate money claims of each 12
employee or househelper do not exceed five thousand pesos 12 SUPREME COURT
(P5,000.00). The Regional Director or hearing officer shall decide or
resolve the complaint within thirty (30) calendar days from the date REPORTS
of the filing of the same . . . ANNOTATED
“Any decision or resolution of the Regional Director or hearing Brokenshire Memorial
officer pursuant to this provision may be appealed on the same Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of
grounds provided in Article 223 of this Code, within five (5) Labor and Employment
calendar days from receipt of a copy of said decision or resolution, to

5|Page
 household service, involving an amount not exceeding five Regional Director. On the other hand, if the employment relation still
thousand pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with a exists, or reinstatement is sought, the next inquiry should be into the
claim for rein-statement.” amount involved.
“If the amount involved does not exceed P5,000.00, the Regional
It will be observed that what in fact conferred upon Regional Director undeniably has jurisdiction. But even if the amount of the
Directors and other hearing officers of the Department of Labor claim exceeds P5,000.00, the claim is not on that account necessarily
(aside from the Labor Arbiters) adjudicative powers, i.e., the removed from the Regional Director’s competence. In respect
power to try and decide, or hear and determine any claim thereof,
brought before them for recovery of wages, simple money
13
claims, and other benefits, is Republic Act 6715, provided that
VOL. 182, FEBRUARY 13
the following requisites concur, to wit:
7, 1990
1. 1)The claim is presented by an employee or Brokenshire Memorial
person employed in domestic or household Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of
service, or househelper under the code; Labor and Employment
2. 2)The claimant, no longer being employed, he may still exercise the visitorial and enforcement powers vested in
does not seek reinstatement; and him by Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, supra; that is to
3. 3)The aggregate money claim of the employee say, he may still direct his labor regulations officers or industrial
or househelper does not exceed five thousand safety engineers to inspect the employer’s premises and examine his
records; and if the officers should find that there have been violations
pesos (P5,000.00).
of labor standards provisions, the Regional Director may, after due
notice and hearing, order compliance by the employer therewith and
In the absence of any of the three (3) requisites, the Labor issue a writ of execution to the appropriate authority for the
Arbiters have exclusive original jurisdiction over all claims enforcement thereof. However, this power may not, to repeat, be
arising from employer-employee relations, other than claims exercised by him where the employer contests the labor regulation
for employee’s compensation, social security, medicare and officers’ findings and raises issues which cannot be resolved without
maternity benefits. considering evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of
We hereby adopt the view taken by Mr. Justice Andres Nar- inspection. In such an event, the case will have to be referred to the
vasa in his Separate Opinion in the case of Briad Agro Dev. corresponding Labor Arbiter for adjudication, since it falls within the
Corp., as reconsidered, a portion of which reads: latter’s exclusive original juris-diction.”
“In the resolution, therefore, of any question of jurisdiction over a Anent the other issue involved in the instant case, peti-tioner’s
money claim arising from employer-employee relations, the first contention that the constitutionality of Wage Order Nos. 5 and
inquiry should be into whether the employment relation does indeed
6 should be passed upon by the National Labor Relations
still exist between the claimant and the respondent.
“If the relation no longer exists, and the claimant does not seek Commission, lacks merit. The Supreme Court is vested by the
reinstatement, the case is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by the Constitution with the power to ultimately declare a law

6|Page
unconstitutional. Without such declaration, the assailed that the obligation of private respondents to the former in the
legislation remains operative and can be the source of rights aggregate amount of P507,237.57 be used to offset its
and duties especially so in the case at bar when petitioner obligations to them, be ventilated and resolved, not in a
complied with Wage Order No. 5 by paying the claimants the summary proceeding before the Regional Director under
total amount of P163,047.50, representing the latter’s minimum Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, but in accordance
wage increases up to October 16, 1984, instead of questioning with the more formal and extensive proceeding before the
immediately at that stage before paying the amount due, the Labor Arbiter. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the
validity of the order on grounds of constitutionality. The amount of the employer’s liability is not quite a factor in
Regional Director is plainly without the authority to declare an determining the jurisdiction of the Regional Director. However,
order or law unconstitutional and his duty is merely to enforce the power to order compliance with labor standards provisions
the law which stands valid, unless otherwise declared by this may not be exercised where the employer contends or
Tribunal to be unconstitutional. On our part, We hereby declare questions the findings of the labor regulation officers and raises
the assailed Wage Orders as constitutional, there being no issues which cannot be determined without taking into account
provision of the 1973 Constitution (or even of both the evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of
Freedom Constitution and the 1987 Constitution) violated by inspection, as in the case at bar.
said Wage Orders, which Orders are without doubt for the Viewed in the light of RA 6715 and read in consonance
benefit of labor. Based on the foregoing considerations, it is with the case of Briad Agro Development Corp., as
our shared view that the findings of the labor regulations reconsidered, We hold that the instant case falls under the
officers may not be deemed uncontested as to bring the case at exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. RA 6715 is
bar within the in the nature of a curative statute. Curative statutes have long
14 been considered valid in our jurisdiction, as long as they do not
14 SUPREME COURT affect vested rights. In this case, We do not see any vested right
REPORTS that will be impaired by the application of RA 6715. Inasmuch
ANNOTATED as petitioner had already paid the claims of private respondents
Brokenshire Memorial in the amount of P163,047.50 pursuant to the decision rendered
Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of in the first complaint, the only claim that should be deliberated
Labor and Employment upon by the Labor Arbiter should be limited to the second
amount given by the Regional Director in the second complaint
competence of the Regional Director, as duly authorized
together with the proposal to offset the obligations.
representative of the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Article
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional
128 of the Labor Code, as amended. Considering further that
Director dated April 12, 1985, is SET ASIDE. The case is
the aggregate claims involve an amount in excess of P5,000.00,
REFERRED, if the respondents are so minded, to the Labor
We find it more appropriate that the issue of petitioner
Arbiter for proper proceedings.
hospital’s liability therefor, including the proposal of petitioner

7|Page
 SO ORDERED.
15
VOL. 182, FEBRUARY 15
7, 1990
Gonzales, Jr. vs. Alvarez
     Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,
Jr., Cruz, Feliciano,  Gancayco, Padilla,  Bidin, Sarmiento, Co
rtés, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Decision set aside.
Notes.—A return-to-work order is authorized to prevent
impairment of national interest. Such statutory authorization is
valid. (Sarmiento vs. Tuico, 162 SCRA 676.)
The statute creating POEA and the regulations governing
Filipino workers for overseas employment do not limit their
coverage to non-Filipino employers. (Eastern Shipping Lines,
Inc. vs. POEA, 170 SCRA 54.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights

reserved.

8|Page