On March 5, 1986, a complaint^[1] was filed by private respondent Thelma L. Cuerda before the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. 9 in Zamboanga City against the petitioner Star Security and Detective Investigation Agency for underpayment of minimum wage, emergency cost of living allowance, non-payment of 13th month pay, regular holiday pay, rest day pay and service incentive leave pay.

On April 21, 1986, an inspection was conducted by the Regional Office a quo on the premises of the petitioner but the necessary documents (payrolls) as requested by the inspecting officer were not made available.  Petitioner promised, however, that said documents would be made available the following week.  On May 26, 1986, petitioner submitted the requested documents (payrolls), but only for the year 1985.  Petitioner stated that such documents may also be made as the basis for the year 1982 up to year 1985 salary.

Based on the submitted documents and the respective affidavits of the petitioner and the private respondent, the Regional Director promulgated on June 5, 1986 an order giving due course to the aforementioned complaint and awarding to the private respondent the sum of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Pesos (P14,280.00) representing underpayment of wages, emergency cost of living allowance, 13th month pay, rest day pay and service incentive leave pay.

On June 26, 1986, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the above mentioned Order on the grounds that the Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the case and that the award made in favor of the private respondent has no basis in law and in fact.  On July 24, 1986, the Regional Director issued another Order modifying his Order dated June 5, 1986 and ordering the petitioner to pay complainant the sum of Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Four Pesos and Ninety Six Centavos (P18,394.96).

On appeal to the Secretary of Labor, the decision of the Regional Director was upheld in an order^[2] dated August 5, 1987.  The motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied in an order dated February 17, 1988.  Hence, this petition for certiorari.

The petition was given due course in this Court's resolution dated November 23, 1988 and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

The pivotal issue in the case at bar is whether or not the Regional Director of the Department of Labor acted within the bounds of his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the complaint by private respondent below.

This Court had enumerated in the case of Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. vs. Hon. Minister of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 74621, February 7, 1990, applying Republic Act No. 6715, the requisites before the Regional Director and other hearing officers of the Department of Labor (aside from the Labor Arbiter) could have jurisdiction over money claims, to wit:

1)  The claim is presented by an employee or person employed in domestic or household service, or househelper under the code;

2)  The claimant, no longer being employed, does not seek reinstatement; and

3)  The aggregate money claim of the employee or househelper does not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).

The aforecited case likewise adopted the Separate Opinion of Mr. Justice Andres Narvasa in the case of Briad Agro Development Corporation, as reconsidered, G.R. No. 82805, November 9, 1989 which states:

"In the resolution, therefore, of any question of jurisdiction over a money claim arising from employer-employee relations, the first inquiry should be into whether the employment relation does indeed still exist between the claimant and the respondent.

"If the relation no longer exists, and the claimant does not seek reinstatement, the case is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by the Regional Director.  On the other hand, if the employment relation still exists, or reinstatement is sought, the next inquiry should be into the amount involved.

"If the amount involved does not exceed P5,000.00, the Regional Director undeniably has jurisdiction.  But even if the amount of the claim exceeds P5,000.00, the claim is not on that account necessarily removed from the Regional Director's competence.  In respect thereof, he may still exercise the visitorial and enforcement powers vested in him by Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, supra; that is to say, he may still direct his labor regulations officers or industrial safety engineers to inspect the employer's premises and examine his records; and if the officers should find that there have been violations of labor standards provisions, the Regional Director may, after due notice and hearing, order compliance by the employer therewith and issue a writ of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement thereof.  However, this power may not, to repeat, be exercised by him where the employer contests the labor regulation officers' findings and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.  In such an event, the case will have to be referred to the corresponding Labor Arbiter for adjudication, since it falls within the latter's exclusive original jurisdiction."

The petition is impressed with merit.

We find that the Regional Director had no jurisdiction over the case at bar.

It can be gleaned from the complaint filed by private respondent Cuerda that she was relieved of her employment due to her expired license and as found by public respondent Secretary of Labor, Cuerda did not seek reinstatement but just wanted to press her claim for the benefits and separation pay.  Also, the amount involved in this case is more than five thousand pesos (P5,000). All these factors taken into consideration, We find that the claims should have been filed with the labor arbiter.  Restating the aforementioned Brokenshire and Briad cases (supra), "(I)f the relation (employer-employee) no longer exists, and the claimant does not seek reinstatement, the case is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by the Regional Director."

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed orders are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  The case is REFERRED, if the private respondent is so minded, to the Labor Arbiter for proper proceeding.

SO ORDERED.

Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), J., Concurring also with the separate opinion of J. Padilla.
Padilla, J., See Separate Concurring Opinion.

---

^[1] Annex A, p. 12, Rollo

^[2] Annex G, p. 27, Rollo

tags