maternity children's hospital v sec. of labor

7/23/2019 Maternity Children's Hospital v Sec. of Labor

1/8

G.R. No. 78909 June 30, 1989MATERNITY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, e!e"en#e$ %& ANTERA L. DORADO,Pe"$en#, petitioner,vs.THE HONORA(LE SECRETARY O) LA(OR AND THE REGIONAL D*RECTOR O)LA(OR, REGION +,respondents.MEDIALDEA, J.:This is a petition for certiorariseeking the annulment of the Decision of therespondent Secretary of Labor dated September 24, 1!", affirming #ith modification

the $rder of respondent %egional Director of Labor, %egion &, dated 'ugust 4, 1!",a#arding salary differentials and emergency cost of living allo#ances ()*$L'S+ toemployees of petitioner, and the $rder denying petitioners motion for reconsiderationdated -ay 1, 1!/, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.0etitioner is a semigovernment hospital, managed by the oard of Directors of the*agayan de $ro 3omens *lub and 0uericulture *enter, headed by -rs. 'nteraDorado, as holdover 0resident. The hospital derives its finances from the club itselfas #ell as from paying patients, averaging 1 per month. 5t is also partly subsidi6edby the 0hilippine *harity S#eepstakes $ffice and the *agayan De $ro *itygovernment.0etitioner has fortyone (41+ employees. 'side from salary and living allo#ances, theemployees are given food, but the amount spent therefor is deducted from theirrespective salaries (pp. ///!, Rollo+.$n -ay 2, 1!", ten (1+ employees of the petitioner employed in different

capacities7positions filed a complaint #ith the $ffice of the %egional Director of Laborand )mployment, %egion &, for underpayment of their salaries and )*$L'S, #hich#as docketed as %$& *ase 8o. *3/1!".$n 9une 1", 1!", the %egional Director directed t#o of his Labor Standard and3elfare $fficers to inspect the records of the petitioner to ascertain the truth of theallegations in the complaints (p. !, Rollo+. 0ayrolls covering the periods of -ay,1/4, 9anuary, 1!:, 8ovember, 1!: and -ay, 1!", #ere duly submitted forinspection.$n 9uly 1/, 1!", the Labor Standard and 3elfare $fficers submitted their reportconfirming that there #as underpayment of #ages and )*$L's of all the employeesby the petitioner, the dispositive portion of #hich reads;

58 ) =$%)?$58?, deficiency on #age and ecola asverified and confirmed per revie# of the respondent payrolls and

intervie#s #ith the complainant #orkers and all other informationgathered by the team, it is respectfully recommended to the>onorable %egional Director, this office, that 'ntera Dorado,0resident be $%D)%)D to pay the amount of S5& >@8D%)D=5=TA =$@% T>$@S'8D S)@8D%)D =5=TA S5& B 171(0":4,/:".1+, representing underpayment of #ages and ecola tothe T>5%TA S5& ("+ employees of the said hospital as appearingin the attached 'nneC = #orksheets and7or #hatever actioneEuitable under the premises. (p. , Rollo+

ased on this inspection report and recommendation, the %egional Director issued an$rder dated 'ugust 4, 1!", directing the payment of 0/2,!!!.:!, representingunderpayment of #ages and )*$L's to all the petitioners employees, the dispositiveportion of #hich reads;

3>)%)=$%), premises considered, respondent -aternity and*hildren >ospital is hereby ordered to pay the abovelistedcomplainants the total amount indicated opposite each name, thruthis $ffice #ithin ten (1+ days from receipt thereof. Thenceforth,the respondent hospital is also ordered to pay itsemployees7#orkers the prevailing statutory minimum #age andallo#ance.S$ $%D)%)D. (p. 4, Rollo+

0etitioner appealed from this $rder to the -inister of Labor and )mployment, >on.

'ugusto S. Sanche6, #ho rendered a Decision on September 24, 1!", modifying thesaid $rder in that deficiency #ages and )*$L's should be computed only from -ay2, 1! to -ay 2, 1!", the dispositive portion of #hich reads;

3>)%)=$%), the 'ugust 2, 1!" order is hereby -$D5=5)D inthat the deficiency #ages and )*$L's should only be computedfrom -ay 2, 1! to -ay 2, 1!". The case is remanded to the%egional Director, %egion &, for recomputation specifying theamounts due each the complainants under each of the applicable0residential Decrees. (p. 4,Rollo+

$n $ctober 24, 1!", the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration #hich #asdenied by the Secretary of Labor in his $rder dated -ay 1, 1!/, for lack of merit (p.4 Rollo+.The instant petition Euestions the allembracing applicability of the a#ard involvingsalary differentials and )*$L'S, in that it covers not only the hospital employees

#ho signed the complaints, but also those (a+ #ho are not signatories to thecomplaint, and (b+ those #ho #ere no longer in the service of the hospital at the timethe complaints #ere filed.0etitioner like#ise maintains that the $rder of the respondent %egional Director ofLabor, as affirmed #ith modifications by respondent Secretary of Labor, does notclearly and distinctly state the facts and the la# on #hich the a#ard #as based. 5n its%eFoinder to *omment, petitioner further Euestions the authority of the %egionalDirector to a#ard salary differentials and )*$L's to private respondents, (relying onthe case of )ncarnacion vs. alta6ar, ?.%. 8o. L1"!!, -arch 2/, 1"1, 1 S*%'!", as authority for raising the additional issue of lack of Furisdiction at any stage ofthe proceedings, p. :2, Rollo+, alleging that the original and eCclusive Furisdiction overmoney claims is properly lodged in the Labor 'rbiter, based on 'rticle 21/, paragraph of the Labor *ode.

The primary issue here is #hether or not the %egional Director had Furisdiction overthe case and if so, the eCtent of coverage of any a#ard that should be forthcoming,arising from his visitorial and enforcement po#ers under 'rticle 12! of the Labor*ode. The matter of #hether or not the decision states clearly and distinctlystatement of facts as #ell as the la# upon #hich it is based, becomes relevant afterthe issue on Furisdiction has been resolved.This is a labor standards case, and is governed by 'rt. 12!b of the Labor *ode, asamended by ).$. 8o. 111. Labor standards refer to the minimum reEuirementsprescribed by eCisting la#s, rules, and regulations relating to #ages, hours of #ork,cost of living allo#ance and other monetary and #elfare benefits, includingoccupational, safety, and health standards (Section /, %ule 5, %ules on the Dispositionof Labor Standards *ases in the %egional $ffice, dated September 1",1!/+. 1@nder the present rules, a %egional Director eCercises bothvisitorial and

1


2/8

enforcement po#er over labor standards cases, and is therefore empo#ered toadFudicate money claims,providedthere stillexistsan employeremployeerelationship, and the findings of the regional office is not contestedby the employerconcerned.0rior to the promulgation of ).$. 8o. 111 on December 24, 1!", the %egionalDirectors authority over money claims #as unclear. The complaint in the presentcase #as filed on -ay 2, 1!" #hen ).$. 8o. 111 #as not yet in effect, and theprevailing vie# #as that stated in the case ofAntonio Ong, Sr. vs. Henry M. Parel, etal., ?.%. 8o. /"/1,dated December 21, 1!/, thus;

. . . the %egional Director, in the eCercise of his visitorial andenforcement po#ers under 'rticle 12! of the Labor *ode, has noauthority to a#ard money claims, properly falling #ithin theFurisdiction of the labor arbiter. . . .. . . 5f the inspection results in a finding that the employer hasviolated certain labor standard la#s, then the regional director mustorder the necessary rectifications. >o#ever, this does not includeadFudication of money claims, clearly #ithin the ambit of the laborarbiters authority under 'rticle 21/ of the *ode.

The $ng case relied on the ruling laid do#n in Zambales Base Metals nc. vs. !heMinister o" #abor, et al.,(?.%. 8os. /1!4!!, 8ovember 2", 1!", 14" S*%' :+that the %egional Director #as not empo#ered to share in the original and eCclusiveFurisdiction conferred on Labor 'rbiters by 'rticle 21/.3e believe, ho#ever, that even in the absence of ). $. 8o. 111, %egional Directors

already had enforcement po#ers over money claims, effective under 0.D. 8o. !:,issued on December 1", 1/:, #hich transferred labor standards cases from thearbitration system to the enforcement system.To clarify matters, it is necessary to enumerate a series of rules and provisions of la#on the disposition of labor standards cases.Priorto the promulgation of 0D !:, labor standards cases #ere an eCclusivefunction of labor arbiters, under 'rticle 21" of the then Labor *ode (0D 8o. 442, asamended by 0D :/a+, #hich read in part;

'rt. 21". $%risdiction o" the &ommission. G The *ommission shallhave eCclusive appellate Furisdiction over all cases decided by theLabor 'rbiters and compulsory arbitrators.The Labor 'rbiters shall have excl%sive '%risdictionto hear anddecide the follo#ing cases involving all #orkers #hether agricultural

or nonagricultural.CCC CCC CCC(c+ 'll money claims of #orkers, involving nonpayment or underpayment of #ages, overtimecompensation, separation pay, maternity leaveand other money claims arising from employeeemployer relations, eCcept claims for #orkmenscompensation, social security and medicarebenefitsH(d+ (iolations o" labor standard la)sH

CCC CCC CCC()mphasis supplied+

The %egional Director eCercised visitorial rights only under then 'rticle 12/ of the*ode as follo#s;

'%T. 12/.(isitorial Po)ers.G The Secretary of Labor or his dulyauthori6ed representatives, including, but not restricted, to the laborinspectorate, shall have access to employers records and premisesat any time of the day or night #henever #ork is being undertakentherein, and the right to copy therefrom, to Euestion any employeeand investigate any fact, condition or matter #hich may benecessary to determine violations or in aid in the enforcement of

this Title and of any 3age $rder or regulation issued pursuant tothis *ode.3ith the promulgation of 0D !:, %egional Directors #ere given enforcementpo#ers, in additionto visitorial po#ers. 'rticle 12/, as amended, provided in part;

S)*. 1. 'rticle 12/ of the *ode is hereby amended to read asfollo#s;

'rt. 12/. (isitorial and en"orcement po)ers. GCCC CCC CCC

(b+ The Secretary of Labor orhis duly authori6edrepresentatives shall have thepo)er to order and administer,after due notice andhearing,compliance )ith the

labor standards provisionsofthis *ode based on thefindings of labor regulationofficers or industrial safetyengineers made in the courseof inspection, and to issue #ritsof eCecution to the appropriateauthority for the enforcement oftheir order.

CCC CCC CCCLabor 'rbiters, on the other hand, lost Furisdiction over labor standards cases. 'rticle21", as then amended by 0D !:, provided in part;

S)*. 22. 'rticle 21" of the *ode is hereby amended to read as

follo#s; 'rt. 21". $%risdiction o" #abor Arbiters and the&ommission. G (a+ The Labor 'rbiters shallhave excl%sive '%risdiction to hear and decidethefollo#ing cases involving all #orkers, #hetheragricultural or nonagricultural;

CCC CCC CCC(+ 'll money claims of #orkersinvolving nonpayment orunderpayment of #ages,overtime or premiumcompensation, maternity orservice incentive leave,

2


3/8

separation pay and othermoney claims arising fromemployeremployee relations,eCcept claims for employeescompensation, social securityand medicare benefits and asother)ise provided in Article*+ o" this &ode.

CCC CCC CCC

()mphasis supplied+@nder the then Labor *ode therefore (0D 442 as amended by 0D :/a, as furtheramended by 0D !:+, there #ere three adFudicatory units; The %egional Director, theureau of Labor %elations and the Labor 'rbiter. 5t became necessary to clarify andconsolidate all governing provisions on Furisdiction into one document. $n 'pril 2,1/", -$L) 0olicy 5nstructions 8o. " #as issued, and provides in part (on laborstandards cases+ as follo#s;

0$L5*A 58ST%@*T5$8S 8$. "T$; 'll *oncernedS@9)*T; D5ST%5@T5$8 $= 9@%5SD5*T5$8 $


4/8

addition, the Labor 'rbiter had Furisdiction evenover termination and laborstandards casesthat may be assignedto them for compulsoryarbitration by the Director of the %egional $ffice.0D 11 merged conciliation and compulsoryarbitration functions in the person of the Labor'rbiter. The procedure governing the dispositionof cases at the 'rbitration ranch paralleledthose in the Special Task =orce and =ield

Services Division, #ith one maFor eCception; theLabor 'rbiter eCercised full and untrammelledauthority in the disposition of the case,particularly in the substantive aspect, hisdecisions and orders subFect to revie# only onappeal to the 8L%*. 3

. -$L) 0olicy 5nstructions 8o. / G ecauseof the seemingly overlapping functions as a resultof 0D 11, -$L) 0olicy 5nstructions 8o. /#as issued on $ctober /, 1/!, and provided inpart;

0$L5*A 58ST%@*T5$8S 8$. /T$; 'll *oncernedS@9)*T; 'SS5?8-)8T $= *'S)S T$ L'$% '%5T)%S

0ursuant to the provisions of 0residential Decree8o. 11 and to insure speedy disposition oflabor cases, the follo#ing guidelines are herebyestablished for the information and guidance ofall concerned.

1. *onciliable *ases.*ases #hich are conciliable per se i.e., (a+ laborstandards cases #here employeremployeerelationship no longer existsH (b+ cases involvingdeadlock in collective bargaining, eCcept thosefalling under 0.D. !2, as amendedH (c+ unfairlabor practice casesH and (d+ overseasemployment cases, eCcept those involving

overseas seamen, shall be assigned by the%egional Director to the Labor 'rbiter "orconciliation and arbitration )itho%t co%rsing themthro%gh the conciliation section o" the RegionalO""ice.

2. Labor Standards *ases.*ases involving violation of labor standards la#s#here employer employee relationshipstillexistsshall be assigned to the Labor 'rbiters#here;

a+ intricate Euestions of la# areinvolvedH or

b+ evidentiary matters notdisclosed or verified in thenormal course of inspection bylabor regulations officers arereEuired for their properdisposition.. Disposition of *ases.

3hen a case is assigned to a Labor 'rbiter, allissues raised therein shall be resolved by him

including those #hich are originally cogni6able bythe %egional Director to avoid multiplicity ofproceedings. 5n other #ords, the #hole case, andnot merely issues involved therein, shall beassigned to and resolved by him.

CCC CCC CCC()mphasis supplied+

4. 0D 1"1(:1!+ G original and eCclusiveFurisdiction over %nresolvedissues in collectivebargaining and money claims,#hich incl%desmoral or other damages.

Despite the original and eCclusive Furisdiction of labor arbiters overmoney claims, ho#ever, the %egional Directornonethelessretained his enforcement po#er, and remained

empo#ered to adFudicate %ncontestedmoney claims.:. 0 1 (!21!l+ G strengthened voluntaryarbitration. The decree also returned the Labor'rbiters as part of the 8L%*, operating as'rbitration ranch thereof.". 0 22/("1 !2+ G original and eCclusiveFurisdiction over Euestions involving legality ofstrikes and lockouts.

The present petition Euestions the authority of the %egional Director to issue the$rder, dated 'ugust 4, 1!", on the basis of his visitorial and enforcement po#ersunder 'rticle 12! (formerly 'rticle 12/+ of the present Labor *ode. 5t is contended thatbased on the rulings in theOng vs. Parel 5s%pra6and the Zambales Base Metals, nc.vs. !heMinister o" #abor 5s%pra6cases, a %egional Director is precluded from

adFudicating money claims on the ground that this is an eCclusive function of theLabor 'rbiter under 'rticle 21/ of the present *ode.$n 'ugust 4, 1!", #hen the order #as issued, 'rticle 12!(b+ -read as follo#s;

(b+ The -inister of Labor or his duly authori6edrepresentatives shall have the po#er to order andadminister, after due notice and hearing,compliance #ith the labor standards provisions ofthis *ode based on the findings of laborregulation officers or industrial safety engineersmade in the course of inspection, and to issue#rits of eCecution to the appropriate authority forthe enforcement of their order, except in cases)here the employer contests the "indingsof the

4


5/8

labor regulations officer and raises issues #hichcannot be resolved #ithout consideringevidentiary matters that are not verifiable in thenormal course of inspection. ()mphasis supplied+

$n the other hand, 'rticle 21/ of the Labor *ode as amended by 0.D. 1"1, effective-ay 1, 1!H atas 0ambansa lg. 1, effective 'ugust 21, 1!1H and atas0ambansa lg. 22/, effective 9une 1, 1!2, inter alia, provides;

'%T. 21/. $%risdiction o" #abor Arbiters and the &ommission. G (a+The Labor 'rbiters shall have the original and excl%siveFurisdiction

to hear and decide #ithin thirty (+ #orking days after submissionof the case by the parties for decision, the follo#ing cases involvingall #orkers, #hether agricultural or nonagricultural;

1. @nfair labor practice casesH2. Those that #orkers may file involving #ages,hours of #ork and other terms and conditions ofemploymentH. 'll money claims of #orkers, including thosebased on nonpayment or underpayment of#ages, overtime compensation, separation payand other benefits provided by la# or appropriateagreement, eCcept claims for employeescompensation, social security, medicare andmaternity benefitsH

4. *ases involving household servicesH and:. *ases arising from any violation of 'rticle 2":of this *ode, including Euestions involving thelegality of strikes and lockouts. ()mphasissupplied+

The $ng and Jambales cases involved #orkers )ho )ere still connected )ith thecompany. >o#ever, in the $ng case, the employer disputed the adeEuacy of theevidentiary foundation (employees affidavits+ of the findings of the labor standardsinspectors #hile in the Jambales case, the money claims #hich arose from allegedviolations of labor standards provisions #ere not discovered in the course of normalinspection. Thus, the provisions of -$L) 0olicy 5nstructions 8os. ", (Distribution of9urisdiction $ver Labor *ases+ and / ('ssignment of *ases to Labor 'rbiters+ giving%egional Directors adFudicatory po#ers over uncontested money claims discovered in

the course of normal inspection, provided an employeremployee relationship stilleCists, are inapplicable.5n the present case, petitioner admitted the charge of underpayment of #ages to#orkers still in its employH in fact, it pleaded for time to raise funds to satisfy itsobligation. There )as th%s no contest against the "indingsof the labor inspectors.arely less than a month after the promulgation on 8ovember 2", 1!" of theJambales ase -etals case, )Cecutive $rder 8o. 111 #as issued on December 24,1!",amending 'rticle 12!(b+ of the Labor *ode, to read as follo#s;

(b+ T>) 0%$ST'8D58? '8D 58 *'S)S 3>)%)T>) %)L'T5$8S>50 $= )-0L$A)%)-0L$A)) ST5LL )&5STS, the -inister of Labor

and )mployment or his duly authori6edrepresentatives shall have the po#er to order andadminister, after due notice and hearing,compliance #ith the labor standards provisions ofthis *ode '8D $T>)% L'$% L)?5SL'T5$8based on the f indings of labor regulation officersor industrial safety engineers made in the courseof inspection, and to issue #rits of eCecution tothe appropriate authority for the enforcement of

their orders, eCcept in cases #here the employercontests the findings of the labor regulationofficer and raises issues #hich cannot beresolved #ithout considering evidentiary mattersthat are not verifiable in the normal course ofinspection. ()mphasis supplied+

's seen from the foregoing, )$ 111 authori6es a %egional Director to ordercompliance by an employer #ith labor standards provisions of the Labor *ode andother legislation. 5t is $ur considered opinion ho#ever, that the inclusion of thephrase, The provisions of 'rticle 21/ of this *ode to the contrary not#ithstandingand in cases #here the relationship of employeremployee still eCists ... in 'rticle12!(b+, as amended, abovecited, merelycon"irms7reiteratesthe enforcementadFudication authority of the %egional Director over %ncontestedmoney claims incases )here an employeremployee relationship still exists. /


6/8

assignment to a Labor Standards and 3elfare $fficer (LS3$+ forfield inspection. 3hen the field inspection does not produce thedesired results, the %egional Director shall summon the parties forsummary investigation to eCpedite the disposition of the case. . . .Section . &omplaints )here no employeremployee relationshipact%ally exists. G 3here employeremployee relationship no longereCists by reason of the fact that it has already been severed, claimsfor payment of monetary benefits "all )ithin the excl%sive andoriginal '%risdiction o" the labor arbiters. . . . ()mphasis supplied+

Like#ise, it is also clear that the limitation embodied in -$L) 0olicy 5nstructions 8o./ to amounts not eCceeding 01,. has been dispensed #ith, in vie# of thefollo#ing provisions of pars. (b+ and (c+, Section / on %estitution, the same %ules,thus;

CCC CCC CCC(b+ 0lantlevel restitutions may be effected formoney claims not eCceeding =ifty Thousand(0:,.+. . . .(c+ %estitutions in eCcess of the aforementionedamount shall be effected at the %egional $ffice orat the #orksite subFect to the prior approval of the%egional Director.

#hich indicate the intention to empo#er the %egional Director to a#ard moneyclaims in excessof 01,.Hprovidedof course the employer does not contest

the findings made, based on the provisions of Section ! thereof;Section !. &ompromise agreement. G Should the parties arrive atan agreement as to the #hole or part of the dispute, saidagreement shall be reduced in #riting and signed by the parties inthe presence of the %egional Director or his duly authori6edrepresentative.

).$. 8o. 111 #as issued on December 24, 1!" or three (+ months after thepromulgation of the Secretary of Labors decision upholding private respondentssalary differentials and )*$L's on September 24, 1!". The amendment of thevisitorial and enforcement po#ers of the %egional Director ('rticle 12!b+ by said ).$.111 reflects the intention enunciated in 0olicy 5nstructions 8os. " and / to empo#erthe %egional Directors to resolve%ncontested money claims in cases )here anemployeremployee relationship still exists. This intention must be given #eight and

entitled to great respect. 's held in Progressive 7or4ers8 0nion, et. al. vs. 9.P. Ag%as,et. al. ?.%. 8o. :/1112, -ay 2, 1!:, 1: S*%' 42;. . The interpretation by officers of la#s #hich are entrusted to theiradministration is entitled to great respect. 3e see no reason todetract from this rudimentary rule in administrative la#, particularly#hen later events have proved said interpretation to be in accord#ith the legislative intent. ..

The proceedings before the %egional Director must, perforce, be upheld on the basisof 'rticle 12!(b+ as amended by ).$. 8o. 111, dated December 24, 1!", thiseCecutive order to be considered in the nature of a curative statute #ith retrospectiveapplication. (0rogressive 3orkers @nion, et al. vs. >on. =.0. 'guas, et al. (S%pra+H -.?arcia vs. 9udge '. -artine6, et al., ?.%. 8o. L 4/"2, -ay 2!, 1/, S*%'1+.

3e no# come to the Euestion of #hether or not the %egional Director erred ineCtending the a#ard to all hospital employees. 3e ans#er in the affirmative.The %egional Director correctly applied the a#ard #ith respect to those employees#ho signedthe complaint, as #ell as those #ho did not signthe complaint, b%t )erestill connected )ith the hospital at the time the complaint )as "iled(See $rder, p. dated 'ugust 4, 1!" of the %egional Director, 0edrito de Susi, p. , Rollo+.The Fustification for the a#ard to this group of employees #ho #ere not signatories tothe complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement po#ers given to the Secretary ofLabor is relevant to, and eCercisable over establishments, not over the individualmembers7employees, because #hat is sought to be achieved by its eCercise is theobservance of, and7or compliance by, such firm7establishment #ith the laborstandards regulations. 8ecessarily, in case of an a#ard resulting from a violation oflabor legislation by such establishment, the entire members7employees should benefittherefrom. 's aptly stated by then -inister of Labor 'ugusto S. Sanche6;

. . 5t #ould be highly derogatory to the rights of the #orkers, if aftercategorically finding the respondent hospital guilty of underpaymentof #ages and )*$L's, #e limit the a#ard to only those #ho signedthe complaint to the eCclusion of the maFority of the #orkers #hoare similarly situated. 5ndeed, this #ould be not only render theenforcement po#er of the -inister of Labor and )mploymentnugatory, but #ould be the pinnacle of inFustice considering that it#ould not only discriminate but also deprive them of legislatedbenefits.

. . . (pp. !, Rollo+.This vie# is further bolstered by the provisions of Sec. ", %ule 55 of the %ules on theDisposition of Labor Standards cases in the %egional $ffices (s%pra+ presentlyenforced, vi6;

S)*T5$8 ". *overage of complaint inspection. G ' complaintinspection shall not be limited to the specific allegations orviolations raised by the complainants7#orkers but shall be athorough inEuiry into and verification of the compliance by employer#ith eCisting labor standards and shall cover all )or4ers similarlysit%ated. ()mphasis supplied+

>o#ever, there is no legal Fustification for the a#ard in favor of those employees#ho )ere no longer connected#ith the hospital at the time the complaint #as filed,having resigned therefrom in 1!4, vi6;

1. 9ean (9oan+


7/8

DirectorH hence, not applicable #here the employee seeking to be paid underpaymentof #ages is already separated from the service. >is claim is purely a money claim thathas to be the subFect of arbitration proceedings and therefore #ithin the original andeCclusive Furisdiction of the Labor 'rbiter.0etitioner has like#ise Euestioned the order dated 'ugust 4, 1!" of the %egionalDirector in that it does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the la# on #hichthe a#ard is based.3e invite attention to the -inister of Labors ruling thereon, as follo#s;

=inally, the respondent hospital assails the order under appeal asnull and void because it does not clearly and distinctly state thefacts and the la# on #hich the a#ards #ere based. *ontrary to thepretensions of the respondent hospital, #e have carefully revie#edthe order on appeal and #e found that the same contains a briefstatement of the (a+ facts of the caseH (b+ issues involvedH (c+applicable la#sH (d+ conclusions and the reasons thereforH (e+specific remedy granted (amount a#arded+. (p. 4, Rollo+

'**$%D58?LA, this petition should be dismissed, as it is hereby D5S-5SS)D, asregards all persons still employed in the >ospital at the time of the filing of thecomplaint, but ?%'8T)D as regards those employees no longer employed at thattime.S$ $%D)%)D.9ernan, &.$., :arvasa, ;%tierre


8/8

#ithin thirty (+ calendar days from the date ofthe filing of the same. ...

)oo#no#e"1 *ited in 9. 8olledo, Labor *ode of the 0hilippines, 'nn., 1!!%ev. )d. p. 21/.2 (See *ritical 'reas in the 'dministration of Labor 9ustice+(0roceedings of the 1"th 'nnual 5nstitute on Labor %elations La#G 1/, @.0. La# *enter, p. :+. bid.4 as amended by Section 2, 0D 1"1.: )$ 111 eCpressly declared that its provisions #ould becomeeffective fifteen (1:+ days after publication in the $fficial ?a6ette.The eCecutive order #as published on =ebruary 1", 1!/ (! $.?.8o. /, p. ://+ and therefore became effective on -arch , 1!/.

" ' present eCception may be found in Section 2 of %' "/1:,effective -arch 2, 1! #hich gives %egional Director, throughsummary proceeding, to hear and decide any matter involving therecovery of #ages and other monetary claims and benefits, ... to anemployee or person employed in domestic or household service orhousehelper ... arising f rom employeeemployer relations;0rovided, That such complaint does not incl%de a claim "orreinstatement/ Provided, "%rther, !hat the aggregate money claimso" each employee or ho%sehelper do not exceed "ive tho%sandpesos 5P2,333.336..../ *ited in 9. 8olledo, Labor *ode of the 0hilippines, 'nn., 1!!%ev. )d., p. 21".

8

maternity children's hospital v sec. of labor

Documents