OSIAS ACADEMY and MONICA R.

DE CASTRO vs THE DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, et al. GR No. 83257-58; December 21, 1990

FACTS: on January 19 & 21, 1981, the respondents, Eva Cayetano et al, filed a
complaint for money claim with the Department of Labor against Osias Academy
for underpayment of ECOLA. An inquiry was forwarded to the Bureau of Labor
Standard as to the correct wages to teacher who works for 5 days in a week, to
which the Bureau of Labor Standard. The Regional Director, considered the
employees as falling under group 4 where the rest day is not considered paid,
thus dismissing the complaint. The decision was appealed to the Secretary of
Labor and employment, who through the Undersecretary reversed the order of
the Regional director, stating that the respondents-petitioner were under paid
and they are classified as monthly employees. Thus this petition for certiorari
with preliminary injunction and urgent prayer for restraining order.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction by the Department of Labor and Employment in issuing a order
awarding the private respondent salary and allowance differentials?

HELD: No, it is Well established is the principle that findings of administrative

agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.
Judicial review by this Court on labor cases do not go so far as to evaluate the
sufficiency of the evidence upon which the Deputy Minister and the Regional
Director based their determinations but are limited to issues of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion For Certiorari to lie, there must be capricious
arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial
prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil and common law
traditions. The abuse of discretion must be grave and patent and it must be
shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically (Purefoods
Corp. v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415 [1989]; Buiser v. Leogardo, Jr., 131 SCRA 151
[1984]), which is not obtaining in the present case. The petition is dismissed
and appealed order is affirmed.
Sierra Madre Trust vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
121 SCRA 384

Facts: On July 26, 1962, the Sierra Madre Trust filed with the Bureau of Mines
an Adverse Claim against LLA No. V-7872 (Amd) of the Jusan Trust Mining
Company over six (6) lode mineral claims, with the office of the Mining
Recorder of Nueva Vizcaya, and all situated in Sitio Maghanay, Barrio Abaca
Municipality of Dupax, Province of Nueva Vizcaya. The Director of mines
dismissed the claim, and Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
affirmed the decision the latter.

Issue: Whether or not the Director of Mines lapsed in validly locating the
mining claims.

Held: No. The officers of the Executive Department tasked with administering
the Mining Law have found that there is neither encroachment nor overlapping
in respect of the claims involved. Accordingly, whatever may be the answers to
the questions will not materially serve the interests of the petitioner. In closing
it is useful to remind litigation prone individuals that the interpretation by
officers of laws which are entrusted to their administration is entitled to great
respect.' In his decision, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
said: "This Office is in conformity with the findings of the Director of Mines
that the mining claims of the appellees were validly located, surveyed and
registered."
Lacuesta vs. Herrera
62 SCRA 115

Facts: On a disputed fishpond by the petitioners and respondents, the court

rendered judgment that they are partners of the said fishpond having
contributed money, property and effort thereto in pursuance of their
partnership agreement. The respondents then appealed to the office of the
President, said office dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision appealed
from.

Issue: Whether or not the decision of the Office of the President and the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is binding in the courts.

Held: Yes. When there is no showing that there was fraud, collusion,
arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of the Office of the
President or a department head, (such as the Secretary of Agriculture ad
Natural Resources in the present case), in rendering their questioned decisions
or of a total lack of substantial evidence to support the same, such
administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be
interfered with by the courts.