334 Phil. 97
MENDOZA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent M. RAMIREZ INDUSTRIES AND/OR MR. MANNY (MANUEL) RAMIREZ is hereby ordered to pay the complainants claim in the aggregate amount of FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED ONE AND 75/100 (P430,901.75), PHILIPPINE CURRENCY, within ten (10) days from the receipt hereof, and distributed as follows: Names of complainants who worked from January to April 8, 1986 with their corresponding differentials:
1.William Dela Torre | P1,748.00 |
---|---|
2. Rodulfo Candia | P1,702.00 |
3. Clarissa Hermosa | P1,633.00 |
4. Gina Cabigas | P1,702.00 |
5. Elizabeth Endrina | P1,702.00 |
6. Orlando Seguerra | P1,748.00 |
7. Rodeo Seguerra | P1,672.00 |
8. Joselito de la Torre | P1,540.00 |
9. Ma. Theresa de la Riarte | P1,610.00 |
10. Luisa de la Riarte | P1,628.00 |
11. Mario Mancao | P1,540.00 |
12. Rex Deiparine | P1,540.00 |
13. Paulino Villaver | P1,540.00 |
14. Rogelio Paran | P1,540.00 |
15. Lucila Cañezares | P1,633.00 |
16. Roberta dela Torre | P1,633.00 |
17. Juanita dela Torre | P1,633.00 |
18. Susan Villaver | P1,628.00 |
19. Edwin Bacus | P1,544.00 |
20. Diores Labajo | P1,518.00 |
21. Rolando Remulino | P1,738.00 |
22. Elvis Mahipos | P1,738.00 |
23. Raulito Patatag | P1,738.00 |
24. Ofelia Villaver | P1,628.00 |
25. Emelia Mancao | P1,628.00 |
26. Eddie Romares | P1,518.00 |
27. Florian de Ocampo | P1,518.00 |
28. Leonardo Villarta | P1,496.00 |
29. Guadalupe Belleza | P1,496.00 |
30. Ma. Theresa Pacaña | P1,496.00 |
31. Tomasa Mancia | P1,738.00 |
32. Irene Mancia | P1,738.00 |
33. Jose Toroy, Jr. | P1,496.00 |
34. Maribel Bulabus | P1,738.00 |
35. Cabriel Repuno | P1,564.00 |
36. Rodrigo Seguerra | P1,518.00 |
37. Alex Heruela | P1,288.00 |
38. Emie Barcoma | P1,232.00 |
39. Francisco Nebria, Jr. | P1,771.00 |
40. Anicita Delima | P1,702.00 |
41. Catherine de la Victoria | P1,679.00 |
42. Rizalina Cabalan | P1,679.00 |
43. Teresito Bontilao | P1,679.00 |
44. Alln Abella | P1,679.00 |
45. Floriana Roska | P1,472.00 |
46. Justino Manacio | P1,472.00 |
47. Rizalino Labajo | P1,679.00 |
48. Denni Labajo | P1,288.00 |
49. Arturo Fernandez | P1,587.00 |
50. Rogelia Belleza | P1,587.00 |
51. Dominga Canono | P1,628.00 |
52. Janeth Fajardo | P1,472.00 |
53. Raqueliza Bacus | P1,650.00 |
54. Felipe Berenguel | P1,050.00 |
55. Joelito Repuno | P1,311.00 |
56. Raymundo Capala | P1,403.00 |
57. Ronie Zafra | P1,610.00 |
58. Rod Delima | P1,403.00 |
59. Berna Obejero | P1,403.00 |
60. Ludy Ravanez | P1,403.00 |
61. Melit Lee | P1,541.00 |
62. Leonora Rico | P1,495.00 |
63. Perigrina Tirol | P1,587.00 |
64. J. Gondaban | P1,541.00 |
65. Francisco Lariosa | P1,564.00 |
66. Emilito Sensontic | P1,564.00 |
67. Napoleon Dablo, Jr. | P1,656.00 |
68. Teresita Palangco | P1,748.00 |
69. Hanoria Caballero | P1,748.00 |
70. Leopoldo Lebradilla | P1,748.00 |
71. Romeo Genguyon | P1,748.00 |
72. Melvin Jerali | P1,748.00 |
73. Erning Zafra | P1,748.00 |
74. Edna Abad | P1,748.00 |
75. Miraluna Tecson | P1,748.00 |
76. Lorna del Rosario | P1,541.00 |
77. Wilfredo Riveral | P1,679.00 |
78. Lydia Filomeno | P1,541.00 |
79. Susana Meredoras | P1,541.00 |
80. Nemesia Campo | P1,541.00 |
81. Juditha Abellana | P1,541.00 |
82. Marvin Togonon | P1,541.00 |
83. Constantino Cañon | P1,541.00 |
84. Beatriz Ylanan | P1,541.00 |
85. Santiago Deiparine | P1,426.00 |
86. Teresita Vernaiz | P1,426.00 |
87. Rebecca Mercado | P1,380.00 |
88. Elizabeth delos Reyes | P1,472.00 |
89. Aileen Lopez | P1,426.00 |
90. Manuela Bucao | P1,403.00 |
91. Wenceslao dela Torre | P1,403.00 |
92. Ramil Bacalso | P2,433.75 |
93. Edgar Espina | P2,433.75 |
94. Renato Bacalso | P2,433.75 |
95. Francisco Cerñeo | P2,433.75 |
96. Carmelito Paquet | P2,433.75 |
97. Ricardo Sabellano | P2,433.75 |
98. Enrique Gonzales, Jr. | P2,433.75 |
99. Teodulo Tardin | P2,433.75 |
100. Wilfredo Canono | P2,433.75 |
101. Edward Abellana | P2,433.75 |
102. Sismar Ufil | P2,433.75 |
103. Talandron Cording | P2,433.75 |
104. Pepe Cereño | P2,433.75 |
105. Dario Zafra | P1,564.00 |
106. Felicisima Sequisnar | P1,518.00 |
107. Jovencio Basalo | P1,679.00 |
108. Sulpicio Malerong | P1,679.00 |
109. Mercedita Ravanes | P1,679.00 |
110. Maximo Zafra | P1,679.00 |
111. Elizabeth Cabiles | P1,472.00 |
112. Narciso Sadaya | P1,633.00 |
113. Leonila Alfante | P1,679.00 |
114. Carina Polinga | P1,679.00 |
115. Edwin Abiso | P1,679.00 |
116. Diomedes Baricuatro | P1,679.00 |
117. Juditho Deguma | P1,679.00 |
118. Felixberto Basalo | P1,679.00 |
119. Nelson Bacalso | P1,679.00 |
120. Criscencio Echavez | P1,679.00 |
121. Achilles Teleron | P1,679.00 |
122. Jaime Java | P1,679.00 |
123. Eddie Muralem | P1,679.00 |
124. Rolando Meñoza | P1,679.00 |
125. Jorge Abiso | P1,679.00 |
126. Marissa Sellote | P1,127.00 |
127. Myrna Ubas | P1,518.00 |
128. Matias Alferez | P1,633.00 |
129. Arlene Selloria | P1,518.00 |
130. Celestino Abellar | P1,656.00 |
131. Eduriges Abellar | P1,656.00 |
132. Teodora Villamea | P1,656.00 |
133. Elena Villamea | P1,521.00 |
134. Nicolas Alivo | P1,656.00 |
135. Henry Diosmano | P1,656.00 |
136. Marites Sabellon | P1,679.00 |
137. Romeo Nacario | P1,656.00 |
138. Crescensio Alfante | P1,633.00 |
139. Dionisio Segue | P1,408.00 |
140. Felipa Alferes | P1,679.00 |
141. Judy Hermida | P1,679.00 |
142. Marcial Vilarmea | P1,679.00 |
143. Alejandro Pancho | P1,606.00 |
144. Joselito Meñoza | P1,679.00 |
145. Osward Hilwano | P1,679.00 |
146. Randy Selloria | P1,679.00 |
147. Heracleo Ravanes | P1,679.00 |
148. Nelson Oralde | P1,320.00 |
149. Teodoro Alforque | P1,320.00 |
150. Bernardino Cariz | P1,540.00 |
151. Zosimo Saz | P1,320.00 |
152. Luis Obatog | P1,470.00 |
153. Samuel Cania | P1,320.00 |
154. Joel Abalo | P1,518.00 |
155. Andres Quitara | P1,518.00 |
156. Crispin Sabellano | P1,320.00 |
157. Ben Abarquez | P1,320.00 |
158. Roberto Canoneo | P1,617.00 |
159. Fedilito Pardillo | P1,837.50 |
160. Modesto Paquit | P1,606.00 |
161. Ramon Natad, Jr. | P1,637.50 |
162. Thomas Enghog | P1,690.50 |
163. Felomina Bacarro | P1,837.50 |
164. Christina Mañacap | P1,837.50 |
165. Paz Algoso | P1,666.00 |
166. Leo Fernandez | P1,666.00 |
167. Luisa Cavalida | P1,666.00 |
168. Adelina Tumulac | P1,666.00 |
169. Elesito Abiso | P1,837.50 |
170. Helditha Baricuatro | P1,837.50 |
171. Julie Baricuatro | P1,837.50 |
172. Ma. Socorro Calledo | P1,837.50 |
173. Judita Basalo | P1,837.50 |
174. Roger Borja | P1,462.50 |
175. Elizabeth Pasibug | P1,690.50 |
176. Limberto Aller | P1,690.50 |
177. Hipolita Bacarro | P1,837.50 |
178. Jovita Aller | P1,690.50 |
179. Adolfo Sayson | P1,690.50 |
180. Brenda Borja | P1,679.00 |
181. Thelma Alforque | P1,788.50 |
182. Juvy Repollo | P1,788.50 |
183. Dario Alforque | P1,788.50 |
184. Gina Alicabo | P1,788.50 |
185. Wenona Repollo | P1,788.50 |
186. Chona Alferez | P1,788.50 |
187. Virginia Labang | P1,679.00 |
188. Fortunata Cruda | P1,788.50 |
189. Crescencia Tagalog | P1,679.00 |
190. Francisca Borja | P1,788.50 |
191. Nestor Basalang | P1,788.50 |
192. Dominadar Basalan | P1,788.50 |
193. Danilo Jucoy | P1,788.50 |
194. Alejandro Hermda | P1,564.00 |
195. Carmelito Tapangan | P1,564.00 |
196. Erlando Sagismar | P1,564.00 |
197. Rufino Raga | P1,564.00 |
198. Elesio Malarong | P1,748.00 |
199. Sabino Basalan | P1,633.00 |
200. Cirilo Laput | P1,564.00 |
201. Jose Cabusas | P1,035.00 |
202. Boyette Villaver | P1,541.00 |
203. Carfil Hamila | P1,541.00 |
204. Teodolo Cañada | P1,364.00 |
205. Philip Bonjoc | P1,541.00 |
206. Flordelina Villamor | P1,562.00 |
207. Elizabeth Salomon | P1,633.00 |
208. Manuel Fernandez | P1,610.00 |
209. Roy Abrea | P1,610.00 |
210. Fernando Munalem | P1,679.00 |
211. Nila Cañas | P1,679.00 |
212. Alfonso Caroline | P1,656.00 |
213. Janet Sollano | P1,679.00 |
214. Iren Rivera | P1,587.00 |
215. Munda Baricuatro | P1,587.00 |
216. Vivian Repunte | P1,587.00 |
217. Lorinda Obina | P1,656.00 |
218. Marino Franzkie | P1,564.00 |
219. Narcisa Badaya | P1,656.00 |
220. Merlinda Capionese | P1,725.00 |
221. Cenon Cabaña | P1,702.00 |
222. Miraflor Paparon | P1,610.00 |
223. Jorie del Carmen | P1,650.00 |
224. Jerry Molbog | P1,650.00 |
225. Cecenia Tapangan | P1,650.00 |
226. Arsenia Cascuña | P1,650.00 |
227. Josefina Basalan | P1,739.50 |
228. Elizabeth Sayson | P1,739.50 |
229. Dorotea Panilag | P1,739.50 |
230. Estelita Pasayloon | P1,739.50 |
231. Claudeth Repollo | P1,702.00 |
232. Pacita Alfeche | P1,813.00 |
233. Maria Alfeche | P1,813.00 |
234. Elizabeth Ubas | P1,739.50 |
235. Leonida dela Cerna | P1,666.00 |
236. Marina Adlawan | P1,702.00 |
237. Mariaflor Abad | P1,650.00 |
238. Marlyn Sasan | P1,715.00 |
239. Jun Pacaña | P1,837.50 |
240. Noel Gulfiano | P1,837.50 |
241. Ruben Bacalso | P1,837.50 |
242. Romeo del Carmen | P1,837.50 |
243. Malou Alcantara | P1,813.00 |
244. Ricardo Jayro | P1,837.50 |
245. Camilo Labura | P1,725.00 |
246. Jaime Tibimina | P1,837.50 |
247. Jerry Abalayan | P1,837.50 |
248. Arnie Sanggotan | P1,837.50 |
249. Conchita Ginodiala | P1,298.00 |
250. Jose Bonghanoy | P1,430.00 |
251. Leonardo Saz | P1,650.00 |
252. Avelino Ragans | P1,628.00 |
253. Arlene Sebial | P1,298.00 |
254. Mario Franges | P1,298.00 |
255. Francisco Bonghanoy | P1,739.50 |
256. Marivic Navales | P1,813.00 |
Names of Complainants who worked from February to April 8, 1986 w/ their corresponding differentials:
1. Norma Lapoña | P1,127.00 |
---|---|
2. Indolencia Nuñez | P1,127.00 |
3. Carmelita Cabañero | P1,127.00 |
4. Lenita Ubas | P1,452.00 |
1. Noel Caintic | P136.00 |
---|
(1) The Regional Director has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case;With respect to the first ground, petitioner contends that the case falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, citing in support of its contention Art. 217 of the Labor Code, which, before its amendment by R.A. No. 6715 on March 21, 1989, provided:
(2) Petitioner was denied due process; and
(3) The order of the Regional Director does not state clearly the facts and the law upon which it is based and is not supported by substantial evidence.
Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter and the Commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:The contention has no merit. It is true that on April 1, 1986, when this case was filed in the Regional Office, Labor Arbiters had original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers pursuant to Art. 217(a)(3) of the Labor Code as quoted above. On March 3, 1987, however, President Corazon C. Aquino, issued E.O. No. 111, conferring jurisdiction over money claims of laborers on Regional Directors, concurrently with Labor Arbiters. In Briad Agro Dev. Corp. v. Dela Serna,[11] this Court, after declaring E.O. No. 111 to be in the nature of a curative statute, gave it retroactive application with respect to claims filed in 1982 and 1987. Then on March 21, 1989, R.A. No. 6715 was enacted, amending the Labor Code so that, so far as pertinent, it now provides:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
3. All money claims of workers, including those based on non-payment or underpayment of wages, overtime compensation, separation pay and other benefits provided by law or appropriate agreement, except claims for employees’ compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits;
4. Cases involving household services; and
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
[A] party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.The Regional Director may not be divested of jurisdiction over these claims, unless the following elements are present:
In the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of the parties is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice can not be tolerated ¾ obviously for reasons of public policy.
Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. . . And in Littleton vs. Burges, 16 Wyo, 58, the Court said that it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.[17]
(a) that the petitioner (employer) contests the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues thereon;These conditions do not exist in this case and, therefore, there can be no question that the Regional Director had jurisdiction to decide the claims of private respondents.
(b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is need to examine evidentiary matters; and
(c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.[18]
The essence of due process is that a party be afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. In administrative proceedings such as the one at bench, due process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[19]The Regional Director therefore rightly concluded in his order of July 29, 1986:
The records showed that the respondent [now petitioner] was afforded ample time to defend and present evidences to refute the complainants allegations, but failed to avail of those opportunities.[20]
In the course of inspection Mr. Manny Ramirez, owner of the Industry, revealed that he was not giving the living allowances and other benefits for by doing so would mean business closure. He advised the labor inspector to settle the case amicably with the complainants.[21]
This case is for non-payment of the minimum wage, living allowance and non-compliance with other labor standard laws which was filed in this Office on April 1, 1986 by Carolyn Alfonso and 260 others against M. Ramirez Industries and/or Manny Ramirez.Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the order of the Regional Director states the ultimate facts, to wit: that private respondents were employed by petitioner in 1986; that on April 1, 1986 private respondents, led by Carolyn Alfonso, filed the case complaining of nonpayment of the minimum wage, living allowance and noncompliance with labor standards laws; that petitioner stopped business operations on April 8, 1986; that private respondents were entitled to wage differentials; and that petitioner failed to refute the private respondents’ allegations despite opportunity given to petitioner.
The complainants were not given the minimum wage and emergency cost of living allowance as mandated by labor laws since the period of their employment in January 1986, when the respondent opened for business, up to the time it stop business operations last April 8, 1986.
The records showed that the respondent was afforded ample time to defend and present evidences to refute the complainants allegations, but failed to avail of those opportunities.
The complainants, therefore, are entitled to the difference of what has been provided by law less the amount actually received by them.
This case is for non-payment of minimum wage, living allowance and non-compliance with other labor standard laws which was filed on April 1, 1986 by Carolyn Alfonso and 260 others against respondent herein.A decision must state the grounds for it so that any party who wishes to appeal therefrom can make a proper assignment of error against the decision. In the language of Ang Tibay v. CIR:[23]
On the strength of Office Order No. 23 dated April 1, 1986, Labor Standard and Welfare Officer, Mr. Juanito Yallosa, conducted a complaint inspection at the respondent’s premises. Consequently, several conciliation hearings were held until it was reset to April 18, 1986.
However, on April 14, 1986, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss the case on the ground of complainants’ voluntary desistance from pursuing their case and attaching therein their letter of affirmation to said desistance.
On May 7, 1986, both parties again were called for a conference. Complainants appeared while respondent did not. In said hearing complainants vehemently objected to respondent’s motion on the ground that the signatories appearing thereon are not the complainants.
On May 22, 1986, the Regional Director promulgated an Order dismissing respondent Ex-Parte Motion To Dismiss.
On June 11, 1986, respondent filed another Motion praying that the case be remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission alleging among others, that the case is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC.
On June 18, 1986 an Order was promulgated ordering respondent to pay the claims of the complainants.
Hence, respondent appealed.
(7) The [administrative agency] should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.If the test of sufficiency of a decision or order is that the party adversely affected by it can, if he wishes to, assign errors against it, then the order of Regional Director in question is sufficient. Thus, in its motion for reconsideration dated July 29, 1986, petitioner took issue with the findings contained in the order of the Regional Director. Petitioner said:
The awards are inequitable, unjust and oppressive. Contrary to what was recited in the questioned order that the respondent stopped business operations on April 8, 1986, respondent opened for business his new but still-not-finished factory buildings on July 2, 1986. During the alleged period of employment of the complainants, respondent was, and even presently is, undertaking construction in progress of his factory buildings and compound. Anticipating that respondent will need workers when the factory will open for business, many presented themselves to learn the trade of weaving baskets which will be the crafts to be produced in respondent’s factory. Sacrificing valuable materials, respondent allowed those who are interested to learn the trade. Naturally, many of the baskets weaved are of inferior and unsalable quality, but respondent was not counting the costs, expecting that when the time comes to open the factory for business, there would be already available workers skilled in the art of weaving baskets. Besides, there were some who possess the aptitude and had weaved baskets of fair quality, so, they were correspondingly paid of their labor on a piece rate basis. Unfortunately, however, even as construction of respondent’s factory was not yet completed, his business was not spared of agitation initiated by elements of a radical labor union. Hence, this case. And, now, to compel respondent to pay as commanded in the questioned order, despite much sacrifice to waste valuable materials so prospective workers will learn to weave is, verily, inequitable, unjust and oppressive. (Emphasis added)Petitioner would not have been able to say “contrary to what was recited in the questioned order...” if the basis of the Regional Director’s order was not stated. In effect petitioner admitted that he had not paid the respondents some of their claims, such as those for living allowance, albeit it defended itself by claiming that private respondents were not regular workers but only learners, who were allowed to work so that they would learn the craft, pending their employment. However that may be, the fact is that petitioner admitted not having paid private respondents regular wages. That private respondents were regular workers is a finding that the Regional Director made, based on the report of the Labor Standard Officer. The failure of petitioner to dispute this factual finding gives it the stamp of finality. It is now settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are to be accorded not only respect but even finality when they are supported by substantial evidence.[24]