EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 82805, June 29, 1989 ]
BRIAD AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE DIONISIO DELA SERNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS)-WFTU LOCAL CHAPTER NO. RO1-005, ALFRED DELA CRUZ, ET
AL.,* RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 83225. June 29, 1989]
L.M. CAMUS ENGINEERING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE HON. UNDERSECRETARY DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, VICTORIANO ATIENZA, JR., JOSNERI DIOCARES, REYNALDO PARENO, WINNIE ORTOSIT, NELEN SEVERINO, MARLON RESONABLE, ROLANDO ALDANESE, ALICIO SEBIAO,
CARLINTO PAQUERO, JULIAN GOSONA, ROLANDO CASIMERO, ALFREDO DE LEON, VICTORIANO MACHANG, ARMANDO SALAZAR, ANITO DE JESUS, FRANCISCO DELGADO, PAQUITO PITULAN, DANILO CENTINO, ROMEO DELOS SANTOS, RUBEN LARA, ROGELIO MAGHUYOR, BEN ABDANI, RUDY PALASUGLO, WILLIAM BALDADO, ROMEO
LABIGAN, TANNY JANOLO AND EDGAR A. OREZ, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
SARMIENTO, J.:
Submitted for decision are these two consolidated cases, both in the nature of challenges to the jurisdiction of the various Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment to act on money claims.[1]
ANTECEDENT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
I. G.R. No. 82805
This case originated from a complaint filed on February 21, 1987 to recover unpaid wages and wage supplements filed with Regional Director Filomeno Balbin of the Labor Department's Regional Office No. I sitting in San Fernando, La Union. The facts appear in his order:
This case arose out of a complaint filed by TRADE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS) WFTU Local Chapter No. ROI-005, against respondent agricultural firm, for alleged underpayment/non-payment of minimum wage, ECOLA, overtime pay, legal holiday pay, night shift differential pay, 13lh month pay and service incentive leave pay.
Acting on this complaint and pursuant to a corresponding authority issued, a routine inspection was conducted on subject establishment by Labor Standards and Welfare Officer Danilo T. Basa on May 20, 1987, but the same did not materialize since no records were presented for examination, as the same are allegedly all being kept at the firm's Manila Office. Nevertheless, LSWO Basa advised the firm's Officer-in-Charge, Mr. Virgilio Villa-Real to present the said records for verification at our Dagupan Labor Office. However, to date and despite the fact that respondent has been duly notified to present the same, no records were presented for verification.
XXX XXX XXX
Respondent's repeated failure to appear during the scheduled conferences despite due notices, is construed as a waiver of its right to adduce evidence to controvert the above-noted claims. Likewise, its failure to present the required employment records is presumed to mean that the presentation of the same will be against the interest of the respondent and said records will prove the claims of herein complainants.
Based on the records on hand, the workers/members of the complaining Union have been found to be underpaid of their wages and unpaid of their ECOLA, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13lh month pay from January 1984 to April 1987. The claims for non-payment of overtime pay and night shift differential pay have not been clearly shown and proven, hence, are not included in the computed deficiencies.[2]
Director Balbin then held against Briad Agro Development Corporation, and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and considering further that said deficiencies form part of the legal remuneration of herein employees, respondent is hereby ordered to satisfy the same and pay the total amount of FIVE MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINE PESOS and 30/ 100 (P5,369,909.30) in the manner above-stated, within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof, and to submit proof of payment within the same period. Otherwise, a Writ of Execution will be issued to the proper sheriffs to enforce this Order. The claims for non-payment of overtime pay and night shift differential pay, are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Let the parties be notified accordingly.
SO ORDERED.[3]
In its appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, Briad Agro Development contended that the Regional Director has no authority to entertain pecuniary claims of workers, following this Court's ruling in Zambales Base Metals, Inc. v. Minister of Labor,[4] in which we held that money claims are the exclusive domain of the labor arbiters. The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal on the strength of Executive Order Mo. 111,[5] amending Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, in which jurisdiction to so act on monetary claims was supposedly granted to regional directors. In its petition to this Court, Briad Agro Development reiterates its jurisdictional challenge.
II. G.R. No. 83225.
The money award in this case, as and for unpaid emergency cost of living allowances, and thirteenth-month and holiday pays, was granted originally in favor of seventy-four employees of L.M. Camus Engineering following an inspection by Regional Director David Kong of the Department of Labor's Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City. In his order, issued on May 16, 1983, Director Kong condemned the corporation to pay a total of P146.181.20. Forty-seven employees were, however, later dropped from the case following an amicable settlement with the petitioner. The facts are as follows:
Records disclosed that on the basis of the complaint filed by the herein complainants, an inspection was conducted in respondent's premises but both the project manager and the project engineer were out of town, except the internal auditor who informed the Labor Regulations Officer (now known as Labor Standards and Welfare Officer) that he had no authority to produce the employment records needed; that the internal auditor promised to inform the project manager and the project engineer about the required employment records but no information was received since then. Consequently, a subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Regional Director on August 20, 1982, addressed to the Manager of respondent company ordering the latter to submit the pertinent employment records before the Field Service Division, Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City on August 25, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. Notwithstanding receipt of such subpoena duces tecum and the follow-up letter to the said Manager of respondent, plus another subpoena addressed to respondent's project manager, respondent failed to submit the required pertinent records. Consequently, on October 25, 1982 the Regional Director issued the Order in dispute, copy of which was received by respondent on November 1982.
On November 18, 1982, counsel for respondent, Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos, filed a motion for extension of time to file his motion to set aside and/or reconsider Order dated 25 October 1982.
On November 24, 1982, respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside and/or Reconsider the Order dated 25 October 1982 on the following grounds namely:
1. That the Order dated 25 October 1982 was issued without notice and hearing.
2. That the questioned Order is not supported by the facts and the law of the case.
Respondent argues that the awards are void because the composition of each award was not indicated; that complainants were either its employees or that of its subcontractor Carlos Balinagay; that of the 74 complainants only three, namely: Julian Gajana, Jose Casimora and Jose Roxas failed to execute quitclaims; and that for these reasons the disputed Order may be validly set aside and/or reconsidered.
Complainants, thru counsel, filed their opposition to the aforesaid Motion to Set Aside Order dated 25 October 1982; They maintain that the Order in question was issued in the valid exercise of the visitorial and enforcement power of the Minister (now Secretary) of Labor and Employment, thru the Regional Director as his duly authorized representative; that before the said Order was issued, respondent or its representative was directed time and again by the Regional Director to submit the pertinent employment records of complainants but respondent chose to ignore the said directives; that during the bearing of respondent's motion on November 25, 1982 each complainant testified that no quitclaim was ever executed by them, although they remembered having signed a certain document which respondent thru its representative made them believe to be simply an evidence of payment of salary and not a quitclaim.
On May 16, 1983, the Regional Director issued an Order denying respondent's motion.
On May 27, 1983, a Motion to Dismiss was filed alleging that "the Parties have agreed to settle amicably the individual claims of the various complainants who are listed in the order of 25 October 1982."
Respondent likewise moved for the reconsideration of the May 16, 1983-Order on the ground that the Regional Office never had any jurisdiction over the nature of the dispute.[6]
The petitioner then appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor, an appeal that did not prosper. On behalf of the Secretary, Undersecretary Dionisio de la Serna affirmed Director Kong's award, as modified.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, impugning the authority of the Regional Director. Undersecretary Dionisio dela Serna denied reconsideration and sustained the Regional Director's jurisdiction.
The petitioner, in this petition, primarily questions Regional Directors' jurisdiction to pass upon money claims.
III. The cases before the Court; the question of jurisdiction.
The petitioners in these two consolidated cases submit that the jurisdiction over money claims is exclusive on the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission, by force of Article 217 of the Labor Code:
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters 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:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms an 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.[7]
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, relies on the provisions of Executive Order No. Ill, amending, among other things, Article 128, paragraph (b), of the Labor Code:
(b) The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in case where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.[8]
He further submits that, as a consequence, Zambales Base Metals, Inc. v. Minister of Labor is no longer controlling (although in his comment in G.R. No. 83225, he maintains that it is still in force and effect.[9])
IV. The Court's decision.
The Court rules that, in view of the promulgation of Executive Order No. 111, Zambales Base Metals v. Minister of Labor is no longer good law. Executive Order No. 111 is in the character of a curative law, that is to say, it was intended to remedy a defect that, in the opinion of the legislature (the incumbent Chief Executive in this case, in the exercise of her lawmaking powers under the Freedom Constitution) had attached to the provision subject of the amendment. This is clear from the proviso: "The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding . . ." Plainly, the amendment was meant to make both the Secretary of Labor (or the various Regional Directors) and the Labor Arbiters share jurisdiction.
Curative statutes have long been considered valid in this jurisdiction. Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with. They are, however, subject to exceptions. For one, they must not be against the Constitution and for another, they cannot impair vested rights or the obligation of contracts.[10] It has not been shown in this case that these exceptions apply.
That Executive Order No. 111 intended to make the jurisdiction to pass upon money claims, among the other cases mentioned by Article 217 of the Labor Code, concurrent between the Secretary of Labor (or Regional Directors) and the Labor Arbiters is clear from its perambulatory clauses, to wit:
WHEREAS, the welfare of the workers is a primary concern of the government.
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend or repeal provisions of laws that repress the rights of workers and of their trade unions.[11]
Executive Order No. 111, it is obvious, was enacted to widen workers' access to the Government for redress of grievances.
The language of the provision is indeed broad enough to encompass cases over which Labor Arbiters had hitherto exercised exclusive jurisdiction. We quote, in part:
... the Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation ***.[12]
We can no longer accept the contention that the Regional Directors' singular concern, under the said provision, is to ensure compliance with labor standards, such as industrial safety and similar concerns. In Zambales Base Metals, it was our reading of Section 128(b) of the Code that the aforesaid labor officials' authority stopped there[13] but we have, in view of the amendment under Executive Order No. Ill, since taken a second look. As we said, the Executive Order vests in Regional Directors jurisdiction, "[t]he provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding"; it would have rendered such a proviso and the amendment itself useless to say that they (Regional Directors) retained the self-same restricted powers, despite such an amendment. It is fundamental that a statute is to be read in a manner that would breathe life into it, rather than defeat it. At any rate, and as we have observed, the language of Executive Order No. 111 is comprehensive enough to extend to the resolution of employer-employee controversies covered by Article 217.
It is interesting to note that the Government itself (through the Solicitor General) considers Zambales Base Metals v. Minister of Labor as Executive Order No. 111's very raison d 'etre.[14] If this is so, the intent of the legislator to grant Regional Directors the jurisdiction now impugned cannot any more be clearer.
Being a curative statute, the Executive Order in question has retrospective effect. In Garcia v. Martinez,[15] we held that legislation "which is in the nature of a curative statute"[16] has "retrospective application to a pending proceeding."[17] Hence, these cases should be decided in the light of the presidential issuance in question, although they might have come pending further proceedings. Be that as it may, the records show that G.R. No. 82805 had come about during the effectivity of Executive Order No. 111. (In G.R. No. 82805, the complaint was filed on February 21, 1987; in G.R. No. 83225, the material dates do not appear in the records but the order decreeing the money award was issued on October 25, 1982 and a subpoena duces tecum appears to have been issued, in connection with the inspections that prefaced the complaint, on August 20,1982.[18]) With respect to G.R. No. 82805, therefore, the Executive Order squarely applies, while insofar as G.R. No. 83225 is concerned, we give it a retroactive operation.
With respect moreover to Camus Engineering's petition (G.R. No. 83225), it is the Court's considered opinion that the petitioner is estopped from assailing Director Kong's jurisdiction. The rule is that a party may not attack a tribunal's jurisdiction and at the same time ask for affirmative relief.[19] The records disclose that the petitioner had entered into an amicable settlement with a total of forty-seven employees and had it approved by Director Kong. The petitioner must, therefore, be said to have accepted Director Kong's jurisdiction. It cannot now assail it.
Accordingly, we sustain the jurisdiction of the respondents Regional Directors.
WHEREFORE, these petitions are DISMISSED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., and Cruz, JJ., joined Mr. Justice Narvasa in his concurrence.
Narvasa, J., see separate concurring opinion.
* Actual title of the petition. Per the Court's resolution dated November 15, 1988, the Court required the petitioner (in G.R, No. 82805) to submit the names of the respondents. As of the time of promulgation hereof, the petitioners, have not complied. But since the petition raises pure principles i law, the Court is promulgating judgment herein without the names of respondents required. The Court reserves the right, however, to impose proper disciplinary measures against the petitioner for failing without justifiable reason to comply with its directives.
[1] Per the Court's resolution dated August 26, 1988, these cases were consolidated.
[2] G.R. No. 82805, Rollo, 12-13.
[3] Id, 19.
[4] Nos. 73184-88, November 26, 1986, 146 SCRA 50.
[5] Promulgated on December 24, 1986.
[6] Rollo, id., 34-36.
[7] Pres. Decree No. 442, art. 217.
[8] Exec. Order No. Ill, supra, Sec. 2; italics supplied.
[9] for purposes of these petitions, we overlook this apparent lapse and consider the Solicitor's comments in G.R. No. 82805 as the Government's official position since they agree with the Department of Labor's stand.
[10] Government of P.I. v. Municipality of Binalonan, 32 Phil. 634 (1915).
[11] Exec. Ord. No. 111, supra.
[12] Supra; italics supplied.
[13] Zambales Base Metals, Inc. v. Minister of Labor, supra, 52.
[14] G.R. No. S2805, rollo, id., 51.
[15] No. L-47629, May 28, 1979, 90 SCRA 331; see also Calderon v. Court of Appeals, No. 52235, October 28, 1980, 100 SCRA 459.
[16] Supra, 333.
[17] Supra.
[18] Rollo, id., 35.
[19] Balais v. Balais, G.R. No. L-33924, March 18, 1988.