Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

BOLINAO V.

PADOLINA
Facts:
 Petitioners were all former employees of the Sabera Mining Corporation. In 1982 and
1983, they were laid off without being recalled.
 Petitioners filed a complaint for collection of unpaid salaries, unused accrued vacation
and sick leave benefits, 13th month pay and separation pay before the NLRC.
 A compromise agreement was entered into by the parties. Sabera complied with the
payments only up to March 1985 because it had ceased operations.
 Petitioners moved for a writ of execution, which was granted by the LA. The sheriff
garnished the unpaid amount from Sabera’s DBP account, but the same was found to be
garnished by their two creditors.

Issue: WON petitioners enjoy preferential right or claim over the funds of Sabena Mining
Corporation as provided for under the provisions of Article 110 of the New Labor Code?

Held: NO.
 Under the Labor Code, a declaration of bankruptcy or a judicial liquidation must be
present before the worker's preference may be enforced. Art. 110 and its IRR cannot be
invoked absent a formal declaration of bankruptcy or a liquidation order.
 In the case at bar, there was no showing of any insolvency proceeding or declaration of
bankruptcy or judicial liquidation that was being filed by Sabena Mining Corporation. It
is only an extra-judicial foreclosure that was being enunciated as when DBP extra-
judicially foreclosed the assets of Sabena Mining Corporation.

VL ENTERPRISES V. CA
Facts:
 DOLE conducted an inspection of the petitioner’s establishment. An order was issued to
the petitioner directing them to pay 23 workers P822,978.
 Petitioner appealed the order to the Regional Director.
 DOLE Undersecretary Espanol rendered a decision, ordering petitioner to post a cash or
surety bond, otherwise the appeal will be dismissed.
 Petitioner filed an MR, invoking that they already posted a supersedeas bond in a a
similar case pending with the NLRC.
 MR was denied. Order was affirmed.
 CA upheld the decision. Instead of filing a petition for certiorari, petitioner filed a
petition for annulment of judgment, contending that the DOLE had no jurisdiction since
the award involved exceeded P5,000 (LA daw dapat).

Issue: WON the DOLE has jurisdiction?

Held: YES.
 The Servando doctrine, that the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to order and
enforce compliance with labor standard laws cannot be exercised where the individual
claim exceeds ₱5,000.00, can no longer be applied in view of the enactment of R.A. No.
7730 amending Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code:
o 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.
In case an order of the DOLE Secretary involved a monetary award, an appeal by the employer
may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent
to the monetary award in the order appealed from.

CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. OBERIO


Facts:
 Respondents were drama talents for DYWB-Bombo Radyo, a station owned by the
petitioner. They worked 6 days a week and were required to record their drama in
advance.
 Petitioner reduced the number of its drama productions, but was opposed by
respondents. They sought the intervention of the DOLE, and the latter conducted an
inspection.
 The DOLE found that petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws, such as
underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, non-payment of service incentive leave pay,
and non-coverage of respondents under the Social Security System.
 Petitioner argues that respondents are not their employees, and that the case should be
referred to the NLRC because the Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the
determination of the existence of employer-employee relationship which involves
evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.
 DOLE ordered petitioner to pay respondents their unpaid salary and benefits. However,
the RD then referred the case to the NLRC.
 Respondents then filed a case for illegal dismissal with the LA, which was dismissed
without prejudice to the NLRC case.
 The NLRC held that respondents were regular employees, and that they were illegally
dismissed.

Issue: WON there was forum shopping?


Held: NO.
 The causes of the two actions are different, but the entitlement of respondents to the
reliefs prayed for hinges on the same issue of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. While the decision on the said issue by one tribunal may operate as res
judicata on the other, dismissal of the present illegal dismissal case on the ground of
forum shopping, would work injustice to respondents because it is the law itself which
provides for two separate remedies for their distinct causes of action.
 LA has jurisdiction over termination cases, while the Sec. of Labor has the power to
inspect the employer’s records to determine and compel compliance with labor
standard laws.
o The exercise of the Secretary’s visitorial powers is exclusive to cases where
employer-employee relationship still exists. Thus, in cases where the complaint
for violation of labor standard laws preceded the termination of the employee
and the filing of the illegal dismissal case, it would not be in consonance with
justice to charge the complainants with engaging in forum shopping when the
remedy available to them at the time their causes of action arose was to file
separate cases before different fora.
 It would be unfair to hold respondents in the instant case guilty of forum shopping
because the recourse available to them after their termination, but pending resolution
of the inspection case before the DOLE, was to file a case for illegal dismissal before the
Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction over termination disputes.

RIZAL SECURITY V. HON. MARAAN


Facts:
 Rico Gomez and Edwin Tupas (respondents) were employed as security guards with
Rizal Security, detailed at Rainbow End Village in QC. They filed a complaint with DOLE
to seek assistance regarding Rizal Security’s alleged violation of labor standards.
 Pursuant to the SOLE’s visitor powers, an inspection was conducted and it was found
that Rizal Security was indeed violating labor standards.
 Respondents submitted a resignation letter to Rizal Security. Rainbow End Village also
sent a notice of termination of services to Rizal Security.
 Rizal Security filed a motion which questioned the jurisdiction of the DOLE, alleging that
it had lost the same since there is no longer an employer-employee relationship
between Rizal Security and the respondents.
 The motion was denied, and the DOLE ordered Rizal Security to pay the respondents.

Issue: WON the DOLE has jurisdiction.

Held: YES.
 While it is true that the quoted provision states that where employee-employer
relations have been severed, complaints or claims for payment of monetary benefits fall
within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters; however, such is not the
case in the present Petition.
 At the time the respondents instituted their complaint, they were still employed with
Rizal Security.
 Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an
action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its
filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some
of the claims asserted therein.

EX-BATAAN V. SOLE
Facts:
 Respondents filed a complaint for underpayment of wages against petitioner with the
DOLE.
 After an inspection, the DOLE found several violations. After hearing, it was ordered that
petitioner pay respondents.
 Petitioner contends that the DOLE does not have jurisdiction since the money claim of
each respondent exceeded P5,000, and that the LA has jurisdiction.
 Petitioner also says that pursuant to RA 7730, Arts. 129 and 217(6) of the LC no longer
apply to the SOLE’s visitorial powers.

Issue: WON DOLE has jurisdiction.

Held:
 Art. 128 LC
o (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article[s] 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 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
findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues
supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of
inspection.
 According to jurisprudence, the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional
Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised
even where the individual claim exceeds P5,000.
 However, if the labor standards case is covered by the exception clause in Article 128(b)
of the Labor Code, then the Regional Director will have to endorse the case to the
appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
o Elements:
(a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and
raises issues thereon;
(b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary
matters; and
(c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.
 DOLE validly exercised jurisdiction because such jurisdiction was exercised in accordance
with Article 128(b) of the Labor Code and the case does not fall under the exception
clause.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen