GR 152396; (November, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152396 November 20, 2007
EX-BATAAN VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, REGIONAL DIRECTOR BRENDA A. VILLAFUERTE, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, security guards employed by petitioner Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. (EBVSAI), filed a complaint for underpayment of wages before the DOLE Regional Office. Following an inspection that revealed multiple labor standard violations, the Regional Director issued an Order directing EBVSAI to pay the computed wage deficiencies totaling P763,997.85 to the 21 affected employees. EBVSAI moved for reconsideration, contesting the Regional Director’s jurisdiction. It argued that since each employee’s claim exceeded P5,000, jurisdiction properly pertained to the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code, not the Regional Director.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment, through his authorized representatives like the Regional Director, retains jurisdiction to adjudicate money claims exceeding P5,000 per employee under his visitorial and enforcement powers.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Regional Director. The legal logic hinges on the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 7730 to Article 128(b) of the Labor Code. Prior jurisprudence held that the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor was limited by Article 129, which restricted the Regional Director’s authority to claims not exceeding P5,000. However, R.A. 7730 explicitly inserted the clause “Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary” at the beginning of Article 128(b). This legislative amendment clearly removed the monetary jurisdictional limit for cases falling within the Secretary’s visitorial and enforcement powers, provided an employer-employee relationship still exists. Consequently, the Secretary or his delegates are empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims discovered during an inspection, regardless of amount. The Court found this power was properly exercised, as the claims arose from a routine inspection and EBVSAI failed to validly contest the findings with supporting documentary proofs during the proceedings.