G.R. No.

78909 June 30, 1989

MATERNITY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, represented by ANTERA L. DORADO, President

vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND THE REGIONAL DlRECTOR OF LABOR, REGION X

MEDIALDEA, J.:

Facts:

10 employees filed a complaint with the Regional Director of Labor and Employment, Region X, against
the petitioner Maternity Children’s Hospital,  a semi-government hospital, for underpayment of their
salaries and ECOLAS. The Regional Director, thereafter, ascertained the truth of the allegation in the
complaint. Subsequently, the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers submitted their report
confirming that there was underpayment of wages and ECOLAs of all the employees by the MCH. Based
on the aforementioned report, the Regional Director issued an Order directing the payment of Php
723,888.58, representing the claims, to all the MCH’s employees. The Secretary of Labor likewise
affirmed the Decision and dismissed the Motion for Recon sideration of the petitioner. Hence, petition
for certiorari.

Issue:

1. Whether the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case.

2. Whether the Regional Director erred in extending the award to all hospital employees?

Held:

1. The Regional Director has a jurisdiction in this labor standard case. As defined by the Supreme
Court:

“Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules, and
regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of living allowance and other monetary and
welfare benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards (Section 7, Rule I, Rules on
the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office, dated September 16, 1987)”.

Based on the present rules, the Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement
power over labor standards cases, and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims,
provided there still exists an employer-employee relationship.

2. The Regional Director correctly applied the award with respect to those employees who signed
the complaint, as well as those who did not sign the complaint, but were still connected with the
hospital at the time the complaint was filed. The justification for the award to this group of
employees who were not signatories to the complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement
powers given to the Secretatry of Labor is relevant to, and exercisable over establishments, not
over individual members/employees, because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is
the observance of, and/ or compliance by such firm/establishment with the labor standards
regulations.