BANASIG, LEA ANDRELEI L.

LABOR LAW REVIEW – REFRESHER

ATTY. JOSEPHUS B. JIMENEZ

I.

V.L. ENTERPRISES and/or FAUSTINO J. VISITACION, Petitioners

-versus-
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SHERIFF WILLY GABITO, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) and CAMILO
FRANCISCO, Respondents

G.R. NO. 167512, March 12, 2007

FACTS:

V.L. Enterprises filed a petition for annulment of judgment, writ of

execution, and notice of sale on execution. The Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) conducted an inspection of V.L. Enterprises on
March 10, 1998.

On May 5, 1999, the Regional Director of DOLE issued an order

directing V.L. Enterprises to pay Camilo Francisco and twenty-two other
workers the total amount of P822,978.00 within ten days. V.L.
Enterprises appealed this order.

On June 23, 1999, the DOLE Undersecretary directed V.L.

Enterprises to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary
award, or else the appeal would be dismissed.

V.L. Enterprises filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, stating

that they had already posted a supersedeas bond in a similar case
pending with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On February 14, 2000, the Undersecretary denied V.L. Enterprises'

motion for reconsideration and gave them ten days to post the required
bond.

On July 31, 2002, the DOLE Secretary affirmed the order and
deemed it final and executory.

1
 On August 11, 2004, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued,
directing V.L. Enterprises to pay Camilo Francisco and other employees
the sum of P422,978.00.

Based on this writ, Sheriff Willy Gabito issued a Notice of Sale on

Execution of Real Properties on October 11, 2004. V.L. Enterprises filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking the nullification
of the DOLE order, the Alias Writ of Execution, and the Notice of Sale on
Execution.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and
V.L. Enterprises filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also
denied. Instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari with the
Supreme Court, V.L. Enterprises filed a petition for annulment of
judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on execution.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for
annulment of judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on
execution filed by V.L. Enterprises.

LAW APPLICABLE:

Article 280 of the Labor Code:

Regular and Casual Employment.
—The
provisions of written agreement
to the contrary notwithstanding
and regardless of the oral

2
agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary
or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer
except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the completion
or termination of which has been
determined at the time of
the engagement of the employee or
where the work or service to be
employed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
Article 280 of the Labor Code:
Regular and Casual Employment.
—The
3
provisions of written agreement
to the contrary notwithstanding
and regardless of the oral
agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary
or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer
except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the completion
or termination of which has been
determined at the time of
the engagement of the employee or
where the work or service to be
employed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
4
 Article 128 (b) - Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and
217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of
employer-employee still 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 the
Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of the 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 findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer
and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not
considered in the course of inspection.

RULING OF THE SC:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for annulment of
judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on execution filed by V.L.
Enterprises.

It held that an action for annulment of judgment cannot be a

substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

The court noted that the petitioners failed to file a timely appeal and
that the Court of Appeals' judgment had become final and executory.
The court cited a previous ruling that the DOLE Secretary has
jurisdiction over cases involving employee's money claims arising from
employer-employee relations, regardless of the monetary value involved.

Therefore, even if the court were to decide the case on its merits,
the petition would still fail.

OPINION:
I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the DOLE
Secretary has jurisdiction over cases involving employee's money claims,
regardless of the monetary value involved.

5
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for annulment of
judgment, writ of execution, and notice of sale on execution filed by V.L.
Enterprises. The court ruled that the petitioners failed to file a timely
appeal and that the Court of Appeals' judgment had become final and
executory.

II.
SERVANDO'S INCORPORATED, petitioner,
-versus-
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION VI, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, respondents.
G.R. No. 85840, April 26, 1990
FACTS:

The Labor Standards and Welfare Office conducted a routine

inspection of petitioner’s establishment and discovered that there were
deficiency in the wages of 54 employees pursuant to 3 Wage Orders.
Adopting the recommendation made by the Labor Standards and Welfare
Office, the Regional Director issued an order requiring petitioner to pay
its employees the total amount of P964.952.50 as differentials.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regional Director has the jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases involving recovery of wages and other monetary claims
and benefits of workers and employees.

LAW APPLICABLE:

6
 Article 217(a)(6) grants the Labor Arbiter exclusive jurisdiction over
claims arising from employer-employee relations exceeding P5,000.
Article 129 empowers the Regional Director to hear and decide
matters involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims, as
long as the claim does not exceed P5,000.
Article 128(b) grants the Secretary of Labor the power to order
compliance with labor standards provisions and issue writs of execution,
except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor
regulation officer.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

Article 217(a)(6) grants the Labor Arbiter exclusive jurisdiction over
claims arising from employer-employee relations exceeding P5,000.
Article 129 empowers the Regional Director to hear and decide
matters involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims, as
long as the claim does not exceed P5,000.

Article 128(b) grants the Secretary of Labor the power to order

compliance with labor standards provisions and issue writs of execution,
except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor
regulation officer.

To interpret the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor as

including the power to hear and decide cases involving employees' claims
for wages exceeding P5,000 would render the provisions of Article 217(a)
(6) and Article 129 meaningless.

The summary proceedings before the Secretary of Labor are

different from the more formal proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. If
the Regional Director has jurisdiction over claims exceeding P5,000,
Article 129 becomes redundant. Summary proceedings would not provide
the necessary opportunity for the petitioner to present its evidence. The
Court affirms the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter over
employees' claims exceeding P.5,000. The distinct powers of the Regional
Director and the Secretary of Labor should be recognized. Proper
hearings before the Labor Arbiter are necessary to ensure due process
and the correct determination of employees' claims.

OPINION:

7
 I agree with the Supreme Court that the exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide employees' claims exceeding P5,000 lies with the Labor
Arbiter. To fully appreciate the previous rulings of the Court, E.O. 111
was promulgated on 24 December 1986, Section 2 of which amended
Article 128 par. (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, by granting the
Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representative the power to order
and administer compliance with standards and other labor legislations.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:
In my view, there was slight delayed in the disposition of this case.
The presence of the due process implications since the petitioner
contests the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises evidentiary
issues that cannot be resolved through inspection. The decision however,
also proves that laborers are duly protected by the state.