oreshoot

7/3/2015 G.R.Nos.7574648

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/dec1987/gr_75746_48_1987.html 1/4

TodayisFriday,July03,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.Nos.7574648December14,1987

ORESHOOTMININGCOMPANY,petitioner,vs.HON.DIOSCORAC.ARELLANO,Director,RegionalOfficeNo.IV,MOLE,HON.VICENTELEOGARDO,JR.,DeputyMinister,MOLE,THEACTINGSHERIFF,RONo.4,MOLE,RODRIGOBAACO,MANUELRODRIGUEZ,MELCHORGUMPALetal.

NARVASA,J.:

Assailed in this special civil action of certiorari is theOrder of theDeputyMinister of Labor and Employment,affirmingwithmodification theOrder of theDirector ofRegionalOfficeNo. IVwhich, in three (3) separate butconsolidatedproceedings, directed the reinstatementof private respondentsand thepayment to themof backwagesandcertainotherbenefits.1

TheRegionalDirector'sOrder,datedOctober6,1981,containedthefollowingdisposition,towith

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,anOrderisherebyenteredasfollows:

1. Respondent Oreshoot Mining Co. is hereby ordered to immediately reinstate to their formerpositionswithout lossof seniority rightswith full backwagesas computedabove, the complainantsRodrigoBaaco,ManuelRodriguez,RolandoPacaldoSilvestreTeodoro,AlbinoBungalsoandRufinoBungalso

2.Respondent isalsoherebyordered topay thecomplainants thebenefits inaccordancewith thecomputationsmadeaboveandisrequiredthathenceforthitshouldgivethesamebenefitstoallofitsemployees.

3.ThetotalamountofbenefitsduetheemployeesabovereferredtoisP117,905.00.

Oresho.filedtwo(2)motionsforreconsideration.ThefirstwasdeniedthesecondwastreatedasanappealandtransmittedbytheRegionalDirector to theOfficeof theMinisterofLaborandEmployment.Actingthereon, theDeputyMinisterrenderedanOrderonMay27,1985,affirmingtheaforesaidadjudgmentmadebytheRegionalDirectorwith themodification that sixteen (16) employees,who signedanaffidavit of desistance inOreshoot'sfavor, dated November 12, 1981, were dropped as party complainants. Subsequently, the Regional directorissuedawritofexecutiononMarch19,1986whichtheMOLEDeputySheriffsoughttoimplementinJuly,1986.

Oreshoot has come to this Court advocating the theory that all the proceedings above mentioned are voidbecause the Regional Director had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and adjudicate the claims of privaterespondents.Additionally, it imputesgraveabuseofdiscretion to theRegionalDirector in (1) consolidating thethreecasesfiledagainstitanddecidingthemasonenotwithstandingthatthelasttwocaseswerefiledafterthefirsthadalreadybeensubmittedfordecision(2)innotinformingitOreshootofthenonindorsementofthecasestotheLaborArbiterasrequiredbyArticle227(nowArticle228)oftheLaborCodeand(3)rulingthattherewereno valid grounds for its shutdown of its business on account of economic difficulties caused by worldwiderecession.

OreshootiscorrectasregardsitsclaimoftheRegionalDirector'slackofcompetenceoverthecasesinquestion.TherespondentRegionalDirectorhadnojurisdictiontotryanddecideclaimsofworkersandemployeesoftheirillegal dismissal from employment, and for their reinstatement and recovery of monetary and other benefitsconsequentthereto.ThewritofcertiorariwillissueinOreshoot'sfavor.ThesameissuewasraisedinZambalesBase Metals, Inc. vs. The Minister of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 7318488, Nov. 26, 1986. In that case, in a

7/3/2015 G.R.Nos.7574648


substantiallyanalogousfactualcontext,thisCourt,2resolvedtheissueinthefollowingmanner.

Theissueissimpleenough.TheapplicableprovisionisArticle217oftheLaborCode,whichstatesasfollows:

ART.217.JurisdictionofLaborArbitersandtheCommission(a)TheLaborArbitersshallhavetheoriginalandexclusivejurisdictiontohearanddecidewithinthirty(30)workingdaysaftersubmissionofthecasebythepartiesfordecision,thefollowingcasesinvolvingallworkers.whetheragriculturalornonagricultural:

l.Unfairlaborpracticecases

2. Those that workersmay file involvingwages, hours of work and other terms and conditions ofemployment

3.Allmoneyclaimsofworkers, includingthosebasedonnonpaymentorunderpaymentofwages,overtime compensation, separation pay and other benefits provided by law or appropriateagreement, except claims for employees' compensation, social security, medicare and maternitybenefit

4.Casesinvolvinghouseholdservicesand

5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this Code, including questions involving thelegalityofstrikesandlockouts.

xxxxxxxxx

Thisarticledoesnotevenneedconstruction.Itisobvioustherefromthatonlythelaborarbitercoulddecide thecases filedby theemployeesas they involved 'moneyclaims' fallingunderNo.3of theenumeration. As for the regional director, the authority he invokes under Article 128 of the LaborCodeconfersuponhimonly visitorial powersover theemployer'spremisesand records, includingthe right to require compliance with the labor standards provisions of the Code, such as thoserelatingto industrialsafety.Nowhere inthesaidarticle is theregionaldirectorempoweredtosharetheoriginalandexclusivejurisdiction'conferredonthelaborarbitersbyArticle217.

Atthetimeofthefilingofthecasesatbar,originalandexclusivejurisdictionwasvestedinLaborArbiterstohearanddecideinteralia(1)11allmoneyclaimsofworkers,includingthosebasedonnonpaymentorunderpaymentofwages,overtimecompensation,separationpayandotherbenefitsprovidedbylaworappropriateagreement,exceptclaimsforemployees'compensation,socialsecurity,medicareandmaternitybenefits,"and(2)"allotherclaimsarisingfromemployeremployeerelations,unlessexpresslyexcludedby...(the)Code.3

TheRegionalDirectorhaddirectandadministrativecontrolandsupervisionover(a)llLaborArbitersinhisregion.4 As such hewas empowered to assign cases to Labor Arbiters, "taking into consideration their workload, nature of thecase,complexityoftheissuesinvolvedandotherfactors,withtheviewofexpeditingdispositionofcases."ALaborArbitercouldtakecognizanceonlyof"casesindorsedtohimforcompulsoryarbitrationbytheBureauorbytheRegionalDirector,"but the "indorsementornonindorsementof theRegionalDirector ... (could)beappealed to theBureauwithin tenworkingdaysfromreceiptofthenotice.5

Inthecaseofamoneyclaim,theRegionalDirector'spowerwaslimitedtoreceivingthecomplaint,investigatingitandtryingtoeffectconciliation,and,ifnosettlementwasreached,certifyingthecasetotheLaborArbiter.Thatcertification could not however bemade if (a) the complaint patently lacks cause of action (b) the causes ofaction have already prescribed (c) the complaint patently partakes of the nature of harassment and (d) thecomplaintisbarredbypriorjudgment.6

Incasesofshutdownsordismissals,astowhichpriorclearancewasformerlyrequired,theRegionalDirectorwasempowered to initially decide whether to certify the same to the Executive Labor Arbiter or to summarilyinvestigate and decide it within 10 days from filing but if there had been a 11 preventive suspension on theemployeeeffectedbytheemployer, theRegionalDirector ... (was)boundtorulefirst thereon:whether to liftorsustainthesameortostoporgiveduecoursetoanintendedone."AsamatterofpolicytheRegionalDirectorcertifiedthecasetotheExecutiveArbiter"(a)ifthenatureofthecasedoesnotsuitsummaryinvestigation,or(b)ifintricatequestionsoflawareinvolved."Andifhedidnotdenytheapplication,hehadto"immediatelycertifythesametotheExecutiveArbiterforhearinganddecisiononthemerits.7

Itisworthyofnotethatwheretherewasneedfor"hearinganddecisiononthemerits"asregardsapplicationsforclearance to shut down or dismiss, that function of hearing and deciding was not entrusted to the RegionalDirector but to the Executive Arbiter (or other Labor Arbiters). This is clear from the provision requiring theRegionalDirectortocertifythecasetotheExecutiveArbiter.Thatandotherrelatedprovisionsmakeclearthatin

7/3/2015 G.R.Nos.7574648


reality,theonlypoweraccordedtotheDirectorwaseithertodenytheapplicationforshutdownordismissalafter"summary investigation," or certify the same to the Executive Arbiter. And he could only himself act on anapplication forclearance toshutdownordismiss,only if thecasedidnot involve"intricatequestionsof law"orwasnototherwisesuited for summary investigation.8 But, to repeat, where therewas necessity to pass "upon themerits"ofanapplication,hecouldnotdenyit,buthadperforcetocertifyittotheExecutiveArbiter.

ItisalsoworthyofnotethatthejurisdictionoftheRegionalDirectorinthisregardisbyexpresstermsconfinedtoapplications for shutdownsanddismissals i.e., thoseprojectedorproposed tobeeffected in future.Withheldfrom him by necessary implication, therefore, are cases involving actual shut downs or dismissals, alreadyeffectedby theemployer,wheredeterminationof themerits thereofbecomes inevitableuponcomplaintof theemployeestherebyaffected.9

Now, whenBatas Pambansa Bilang 130 took effect on August 21, 1981, the clearance requirement for shutdownsanddismissalswaseliminated.ThepoweroftheRegionalDirectortopassuponapplicationsthereforthusdisappeared.So,too,didhispowertoindorsecasestoLaborArbitersvanishtheLaborArbiterswereplacedbythe batas under the supervision of the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission. Withal, theRegional Director retained the power to conciliate in termination cases (but not to pass upon and decide themeritsthereof).10

ThelatestamendmenttoArticle217oftheLaborCodewasworkedbySection2,BatasPambansaBilang227,effectiveJune1,1982.SaidSection217,aslastlyamended, isreproducedinfull intheexcerptfromZambalesBaseMetals,Inc.v.MinisterofLabor,146SCRA50quotedearlierinthisopinion.11 Itwillatoncebeperceived that theamendmentdoesnotatallaffect,muchlessexpand,thejurisdictionoftheRegionalDirector.TheDirectorcontinuestobewithoutcompetenceorauthoritytohearanddecideanyofthemattersspecificallyplacedbylawwithintheoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionofLaborArbiters.

In this case the Court will therefore make the same disposition as it did in Zambales. "Inasmuch as theproceedings before the regional directorwere null and voidab initio for lack of jurisdiction, the complaints for(back)wagesandotherbenefits filedby theemployeesagainst thepetitionershouldberemandedto the laborarbiter forappropriateaction,"withtheexpectation"thatresolutionof thesecaseswillbeeffectedwiththe leastpossibledelay."Theotherissuesraisedbythepetitionerobviouslyneednolongerberesolved.

WHEREFORE, thequestionedOrderof thepublic respondentsdatedOctober6,1981andMay27,1985,andother related orders and writs, are hereby nullified and set aside. The private respondents' complaints areremanded to the corresponding labor arbiter, with the direction that the same be heard and decided with alldeliberatedisptach.Nocosts.

Teehankee,C.J.,Cruz,Paras*andGancayco,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1RodrigoBaacoand33otheremployees.

2PerMr.JusticeIsaganiA.Cruz.

3Art.217,LaborCode,asamendedbyPD1691eff.May1,1980.TheothercaseswithintheLaborArbiters'exclusivejurisdictionwere:(1)unfairlaborpracticecases(2)unresolvedissuesincollectivebargaining,includingthosethatinvolvewages,hoursofworkandothertermsandconditionsofemploymentand(3)casesinvolvinghouseholdservices.

4Sec.5,ImplementingRulesandRegulations,PD1391,eff.May29,1978.

5Art.228,LaborCodeseeAbadv.Phil.AmericanGeneralInsuranceCo.,Inc.,108SCRA717.

6BookV,RuleXII,ImplementingRulesandRegulationsoftheLaborCode.

7PolicyInstructionsNos.6and14,April23,1976Sec.8,RuleXIV,BookV,ImplementingRulesandRegulationsoftheLaborCode.

8Groundsfordenialoftheapplicationforclearancetoshutdownordismissworkerswereexplicitlyprescribed:(1)therewasashowingofunfairlaborpracticeinconnectionwiththeproposedshutdownordismissal(2)thegroundthereforisnotoneofthejustcausesprovidedforunderArt.283oftheLaborCode(3)theprojectedshutdownwillseriouslyaffectpublicinterest.

9Sec.9,RuleXIV,BookV,ImplementingRules&Regulations,supra.

10Sagmitv.Sibulo,133SCRA359.

7/3/2015 G.R.Nos.7574648


11Atpage2,supra

*DesignatedaSpecialMemberoftheFirstDivision.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

oreshoot

Documents