Jethro Intelligence and Yakult Phils. vs. The Hon. Secretary of Labor, et al.

Jethro Intelligence & Security Corp and Yakult Philippines, Inc. versus The Hon. Secretary of Labor, Frederick Garcia, Gil Cordero, Leonielyn Udalbe, Michael Benoza, Edwin Abliter, Celedonio Subere and Ma. Corazon Lanuza

G.R. No.   172537
August 14, 2009

Facts: Petitioner Jethro Intelligence and Security Corporation (Jethro) is a security service contractor with a security service contract agreement with co-petitioner Yakult Phils., Inc. (Yakult).   The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)-Regional Office No. IV conducted an inspection at Yakult’s premises in Calamba, Laguna in the course of which several labor standards violations were noted, including keeping of payrolls and daily time records in the main office,  underpayment of wages, overtime pay and other benefits, and non-registration with the DOLE as required under Department Order No. 18-02. 

The DOLE Regional Director, noting petitioners’ failure to rectify the violations noted during the above-stated inspection within the period given for the purpose, found them jointly and severally liable to herein respondents for the aggregate amount of  EIGHT HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TEN AND 16/100 PESOS (P809,210.16) representing their wage differentials, regular holiday pay, special day premium pay, 13^th month pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, night shift differential premium and rest day premium.  Petitioners were also ordered to submit proof of payment to the claimants within ten calendar days, failing which the entire award would be doubled, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8188, and the corresponding writs of execution and garnishment would be issued.  

Jethro and Yakult appealed to the Secretary of Labor (SOLE). 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.  They filed a Motion for Reconsideration the SOLE Decision, which was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the petition. They filed another Motion for Reconsideration which was denied so they filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. 

Issue: W/N  certiorari should be granted (w/n there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SOLE and W/N the writs of execution and garnishment subsequently issued were not in order since Petitioners have filed the required bond equivalent to the judgment award, and the Regional Director’s Order was not served on their counsel of record.

Ruling: The petition is bereft of merit.

The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.  It does not include the correction of a tribunal’s  evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon, especially since factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case.

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:

Art. 128.  Visitorial and enforcement power.—

x x x x

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this 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.  The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the finding of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. [Emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied]

           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.

Lastly, Sec. 5, Rule V (Execution) of the Rules on Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in Regional Offices provides that the filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the appealed order or decision, unless the aggrieved party secures a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Court.  In the case at bar, no TRO or injunction was issued, hence, the issuance of the questioned writs of execution and garnishment by the DOLE-Regional Director was in order.

sMiLe!!