LABOR LAW REVIEW

Question and Answer on

Jurisdiction of
Secretary of Labor and Employment
&
DOLE Regional Directors

SUBMITTED BY:

VICENTE ERIC DG. BELMONTE

RICHARD NERONA
MARIA POTENCIANA PADO
ALBERT JEROME RAMOS

SUBMITTED TO:

ATTY. VOLTAIRE T. DUANO

October 7, 2020
 1.
Q: What are the money claims falling under the jurisdiction of DOLE Regional
Directors?
A: Under Article 129, the Regional Director or any of his duly authorized hearing
officers of DOLE is empowered, through summary proceeding and after due notice, to
hear and decide any matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims
and benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or person employed in
domestic or household service or house helper under the Code, provided that:
1. The claim must arise from employer-employee relation;
2. The complaint does not include a claim for reinstatement; and
3. The aggregate money claim of each employee or house helper does not exceed
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).

2.
Q: May the decision or resolution of the Regional Director or hearing officer be
appealed?
If yes, what are the grounds?

A: Yes, under Art. 129, any decision or resolution of the Regional Director or hearing
officer may be appealed on the grounds provided in Article 229 of the Code. Such appeal
may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
1. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the
Labor Arbiter;
2. If the decision, order, or award was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;
3. If made purely on questions of law; and
4. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause
grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.

3.
Q: In the phrase “the aggregate money claims of each employee or househelper do not
exceed P5,000.00” whether this limitation on the adjudicatory authority or jurisdiction
of the Regional Directors, also applies to and operates to limit as well the visitorial and
enforcement power of said Regional Directors described in Article 128?
A: It does not. The matter has already been passed upon and squarely resolved by the
Court en banc in the case of “Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Hon. Minister of
Labor & Employment et al.” In the Separate Opinion in the case of Briad Agro Dev.
Corp., as reconsidered, If the employer-employee relation no longer exists, and the
claimant does not seek reinstatement, the case is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, not by
the Regional Director. While, if the employment relation still exists, or reinstatement is
sought, the amount involved does not 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.

4.
Q: Discuss the rationale or the purpose of the law in extending the power of Regional
Directors in taking labor standards cases from the arbitration system and place them
under the enforcement system.
A: The rationale of the said extended power is to assure the worker the rights and
benefits due to him under labor standard laws without having to go through arbitration,
the worker need not litigate to get what legally belongs to him and the hole enforcement
machinery of the Department of Labor exists to insure its expeditious delivery to the
worker free of charge. (Servando’s Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No.
85840, 5 June 1991)

5.
Q: What is the mode of appeal from the decision of the DOLE Regional Director or
hearing officer?
A: Decision of the DOLE Regional Director or hearing officer under Article 129 of the
Labor Code involving recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits not
exceeding P5,000.00 without claim for reinstatement is appealable to the National
Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) and not to the DOLE Secretary, within five (5)
calendar days from receipt of a copy of said decision.

6.
Q: Pursuant to the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or his duly authorized representative under Article 128 of the Labor Code,
as amended, inspections were conducted at BNP’s outlets on 10 October 2019 and 15
October 2019. The inspection yielded the following twenty-one (21) employees copier
operators;(1) underpayment of wages; (2) underpayment of 13 th month pay; and (3) no
service incentive leave with pay. Hearings were held on 28 November 2019. On 10
December 2019 BNP’s representative submitted Joint Affidavit signed and executed by
the 21 employees expressing their disinterest in prosecuting the case and their waiver
and release of quitclaims. Employees alleged that they did not waive the unpaid benefits
due to them. The investigation conducted by Hearing Officer Julian Russell, the 21
employees claimed that they signed the Joint Affidavit for fear of losing their jobs. The
Regional Director James Russell issued an Order favorable to the 21 employees stating
the valid grounds thereof. The dispositive portion of the Order states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant to the Rules on the
Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices x x x
respondent BNP Services and Trading thru its owner/manager Mr. Coco
Martin, is hereby ordered to pay the employees the amount of
(P1,081,756.70) x x x
Coco Martin in his appeal argued that the Regional Director has no jurisdiction
over the complaint of 21 employees since their individual monetary claims exceeds the
P5,000.00 limit. Pending resolution of the motion, he posted an appeal bond in the
amount of P105,000.00 insisting that the jurisdiction of the RD is limited to claims of
P5,000.00 per employee and there were 21 employees involved in the case.
Whether or not the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the instant labor standard
case,
A: Yes, the jurisdictional limitation imposed by Article 129 on his visitorial and
enforcement power under Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended has been
repealed by Republic Act. 7730. The amendment nothwithstanding the provisions of
Article 129 and 217 to the contrary erased all doubts as to the amendatory nature of the
law, and effect, overturned the Servando’s ruling. The claim later exceeds P5,000.00,
the Regional Director still retains jurisdiction based on inspection’s findings in the
nature of enforcement action. (Guico v. Secretary of Labor, 298 SCRA 666 (1998)
 7.
Q: Whether or not petitioner perfected the appeal.
A: No, there was no perfected appeal.
An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor
and employment under this Article may be appealed to the latter. In case said order
involves a monetary reward, 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.
The records show that petitioner failed to post the required amount of the appeal
bond. His appeal was therefore not perfected. (R.A. 7730 amending Article 128 (b) of
the Labor Code).

8.
Q: What are the visitorial powers of the DOLE Secretary or his duly authorized
representatives under Article 128(a) of the Labor Code?
A: The following are the visitorial powers of the DOLE Secretary or his duly authorized
representatives, including Labor Regulations Officer or Industrial Safety Engineers:
1. shall have access to employer’s records and premises at any time of the day or
night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy
therefrom;
2. to question any employee;
3. to investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to
determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of the Code and of any
labor law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

9.
Q: What are the enforcement power of the DOLE Secretary or his duly authorized
representatives under Article 128(b) of the Labor Code?
A: The enforcement power includes the following:
1. 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;
2. Power to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders, except in cases when the employer contests the
findings of the labor employment and raises issues supported by documentary
proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. (As amended by
Republic Act. No. 7730, 2 June 1994);
3. Power to order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or
department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or
implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the
health and safety of workers in the workplace.
 10.
Q: The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives,
including regulation officers, shall have access to employer’s records and premises
during work hours. Why is the statement an inaccurate statement of the laws?
(a) Because the power to inspect applies only to employer records, not to the
premises.
(b) Because only the Secretary of Labor and Employment has the power to
inspect, and such power cannot be delegated.
© Because the law allows inspection anytime of the day or night, not only during
work hours.
(d) Because the power to inspect is already delegated to the DOLE regional
directors, not to labor regulation officers.
A: © Because the law allows inspection anytime of the day or night, not only during
work hours.

11.
Q: What are the modes of implementation under the visitorial power of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative?
A: The modes of implementation shall any of the following:
a. Routine inspection;
b. Complaint inspection; or
c. Occupational Safety and Health Standards investigation.

12.
Q: What are the two important questions must be resolved before the DOLE may
exercise its power under Article 128 of the Code?
A: The two important questions are:
(1) Does the employer-employee relationship still exist, or alternatively, was
there ever an employer-employee relationship to speak of; and
(2) Are there violations of the Labor Code or of any labor law?

13.
Q: In the conduct of Routine Inspection by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or
his duly authorized representatives, what are the priority establishments and
workplaces?
A: In the conduct of Routine Inspection, the priority establishments and workplaces are
the following:
(a) Those engaged in hazardous work;
(b) Those employing children;
 € Those engaged in contracting or sub-contracting arrangements;
(d) Those employing ten (10) or more employees; and
€ Such other establishments or industries as may be determined by the Secretary
of Labor and employment as priority for Routine Inspection.
14.
Q: What are the instances when Complaint Inspection shall be undertaken?
A: Complaint Inspection shall be undertaken in any of the following instances:
(a) When there is SEnA referral;
(b) When there is an anonymous complaint; or
(c) When there is a request in conciliation-mediation proceedings at the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board to validate or verify violation of labor
standards.

15.
Q: What are the instances to be covered by the Occupational Safety and Health
Standards investigation?
A: Occupational Safety and Health Standards investigation shall cover the following
instances:
(a) Existence of imminent danger;
(b) Dangerous occurrences;
(c) Accident resulting in disabling injury; or
(d) Occupational safety and health standards violations committed in plain view
or in the presence of the Labor inspector.

16.
Q: Give at least five motions or pleadings prohibited at all levels of the execution
proceedings?
A: The following motions or pleadings are prohibited at all level of the proceedings:
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for bill of particulars;
3. Motion for reduction of bond;
4. Motion for extension of time; and
5. Motion of intervention.

17.
Q: How does one initiate a complaint for violations of labor standards laws, rules, and
regulations?
A: If employer-employee relationship still exists, any aggrieved employee may file a
complaint, regardless of the amount of monetary claims, before the DOLE regional
office, or its provincial field offices, which has territorial jurisdiction over the workplace.
On the other hand, if employer-employee no longer exists, either: (1) before the
DOLE regional office, provided that the claim involves recovery of wages and other
monetary claims and benefits, including legal interest, provided further, the following
requisites are present:
(a) The claim is presented by an employee, or a person employed in domestic or
household service, or house helper;
(b) The claim arise from employer-employee relations;
(c) The claimant does not seek reinstatement; and
(d) The aggregate money claim of each claimant does not exceed P5,000.00; or
(1) Before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, in the absence of any of
the above enumerated requisites pursuant Article 224 (217) of the Labor
Code, except claims for employee’s compensation, social security, medicare
and maternity benefits.

18.
Q: When does the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction during
strikes and lockouts?
A: Article 278 (g) of the Code provides that when, in his opinion, there exists a labor
dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry to the national
interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the
dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration.

19.
Q: What are the effects of the assumption of jurisdiction by the SOLE?
A: The law provides that such assumption or certification shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the
assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of
assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately
return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of
law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with the laws as well as the orders as he
may issue to enforce the same.

20.

Q. What are the cases that may be filed at the DOLE Regional Office to be handled by
the Regional Director?

A. Any aggrieved employee may file a complaint if the employer-employee relationship

still exist, regardless of the amount of monetary claims, before the DOLE Regional
Office, or its provincial field offices which has territorial jurisdiction over the workplace.

21.

Q. What happens after filing of a complaint before the DOLE regional office?

A. all complaints for violation of labor standards law, rules and regulations, including
safety and health, shall immediately be forwarded to the regional director who shall
refer the case to the appropriate unit in the Regional Office for assignment to a labor
and employment officer for field inspection.

22.

Q. When should hearing be conducted?

A. When the employer did not submit proof of compliance after seven days upon receipt
of the inspection results, the Regional Director shall summon the employer and the
complainants to a summary investigation.

23.

Q. When should a compliance order be issued?

A. If the Regional Director finds after hearing that violations have been committed, he
shall issue an Order directing the employer to restitute other corrective measures within
ten calendar days upon receipt of the Order and to submit proof of compliance.

24.

Q. How to assail a compliance Order issued by the Regional Director?

A. By filling a motion for reconsideration or an appeal in the Regional Office. A Motion

for reconsideration is filed within seven calendar days from receipt of a copy thereof,
beyond seven calendar days reglementary period, it shall be treated as an appeal but
subject to the requirements for the perfection of an appeal.

25.

Q. What are the requirements for filing an appeal?

A. The appeal shall be filed within ten calendar days from receipt of a copy ot the
assailed resolution. It shall be under oath and accompanied by a memorandum of
appeal. In case it involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon posting a cash or surety bond.

26.
Q. What does the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representatives, including Labor Regulations Officers or Industrial Safety
Engineers, include?

A. 1. access to employer s records and premises at any time of the day or night
whenever work is being undertaken therein, and right to copy therefrom;

2. to question any employee, and

3. to investigate any fact, condition or matter relevant to the enforcement of

any provision of the Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and
regulations issued pursuant thereto. (Article 128 (a), Labor Code and Section
1, Rule X, Book IIl, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)

27.

Q. What does the enforcement power includes?

A. 1. To issue compliance order 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 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. (Article 128 (b), Labor Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7730, June 2, 1994, and Section 2, Rule X, Book IlI,
Rules to Implement the Labor Code)

2.To issue writs of execution 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. (Article 128 (b),
Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7730, June 2, 1994, and Section 2
Ibl, Rule X, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code) 

3. Enforcement on health and safety of workers which includes the following:

a. To issue order of stoppage of work or suspension of operations. The Secretary of

Labor and Employment may likewise order stoppage of work or suspension of
operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non-compliance
with the law or implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent
danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. (Article 128 [c],
Labor Code and Section 3 lal, Rule X, Book lll, Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code)

b. Lifting of order of stoppage of work or suspension of operations. Within twenty-

four hours, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether an order for the
stoppage of work or suspension of operations shall be lifted or not. In case the
violation is attributable to the fault of the employer, he shall pay the employees
concerned their salaries or wages during the period of Such stoppage of work or
suspension of operation. (Article 128, Labor Code and Section 3 [b], Rule X, Book
11, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)

4. To keep and maintain employment records The Secretary of

Labor and Employment may, by appropriate regulations, require employers to keep and
maintain such employment records as may be necessary in aid of his visitorial and
enforcement powers under this Code.

28.

Q. Savoy Department Store (SDS) adopted a policy of hiring salesladies on five-month

cycles. At the end of a saleslady's five-month term, another person is hired as
replacement. Salesladies attend to store customers, wore SDS uniforms, report at
specified hours, and are subject to SDS workplace rules and regulations. Those who
refuse the 5-month employment contract are not hired. The day after expiration of her
5-month engagement, Lina wore her SDS white and blue uniform and reported for work
but was denied entry into the store premises. Agitated, she went on a hunger strike and
stationed herself in front of one of the gates of SDS. Soon thereafter, other employees
whose 5-month term had also elapsed joined Lina' s hunger strike. c.) Assume that no
fixed-term worker complained, yet in a routine inspection a labor inspector of the
Regional Office of the Labor Code's security of tenure provisions and recommended to
the Regional Director the issuance a compliance order. The Regional Director adopted
the recommendation and issued a compliance order. Is the compliance order valid?
Explain your answer

A.Yes. 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. (Article 128 (b), Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7730, June
2, 1994, and Section 2 Rule X, Book IIL, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)

29.

Q. What does the power of appellate review includes?

A. 1. The Secretary of Labor and Employment, at his own initiative or upon request
of the employer and/or employee, may review the order of the Regional Director. The
order of the Regional Director shall be immediately final and executory unless
stayed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment upon posting by the employer
of a reasonable cash or surety bond as fixed by the Regional Director. (last
paragraph of Article 128 (b), Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7730,
June 2, 1994, Section 4 lal, Rule X, Book II, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)

2. In aid of his power of review, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may
direct the Bureau of Working Conditions to evaluate the findings or orders of the
Regional Director. The decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall be
final and executory. (Section 4 lbl, Rule X, Book II1, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code)

30.

Q. The Bantay-Salakay Security Agency (BSSA) employed ten (10) security guards and
assigned them to Surot Theater which contracted BSSA for its security needs. On
November 3, 1998, the ten (10) security guards of BSSA addressed to the Office of the
President, a letter-complaint against their employer for non-compliance with R.A. 6640
providing for an increase in the statutory the statutory minimum wage and salary rates
of employees and workers in the private sector. The letter was endorsed to the Secretary
of Labor who, in turn, referred the matter to the Regional Director of Makunat City in
Region XII where the ten (10) security guards resides and where their employer
conducts business. The Office of the Regional Director conducted an investigation and
called for the hearing with all the parties present. Therefrom, the Regional director
found that there were indeed violations committed by BSSA against the ten (10)
security guards such as underpayment of wages, non-integration of cost of living
allowance, underpayment of 13th month pay and underpayment of five (5) days
incentive pay. BSSA and Surot Theater were directed to comply with the labor standards
and ordered BSSA and Surot Theater to pay jointly and severally to the ten (10)
security guards their respective claim of P10,000.00 each or an aggregate amount
of P100,000.00. BSSA and Surot. The after filed a Petition for Certiorari before the
Supreme Court seeking to annul the decision of the Regional Director on the ground
of grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the case. Will the Petition
for Certiorari proper? Decide with reason.

A. No. Under Article 128 (b), Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7730,
June 2, 1994, Section 4 [al, Rule X, Book I1, Rules to Implement the Labor Code,
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, has the power, at his own initiative or
upon request of the employer and/or employee, to review the order of the Regional
Director. The order of the Regional Director shall be immediately final and executory
unless stayed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment upon posting by the
employer of a reasonable cash or surety bond as fixed by the Regional Director.
 31.
Q. What is the significance of "in cases of employer-employee relationship still exists"?

A. In Peoples Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of

Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652, May8,2009, 587 SCRA 724, the Supreme
Court explained the extent of the visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE found
in Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 7730, and ruled that
the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a statutory prerequisite to and a
limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor. Thus, the High Court said:

The clause "in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists"
signifies that the employer-employee relationship must have existed even before
the emergence of the controversy. Necessarily, the DOLE'S power does not apply in
two instances, namely: (a) where the employer-employee relationship has ceased;
and (b) where no such relationship has ever existed.

32.

Q. Where does claims for payment of monetary benefits fall if no employer-employee

relationship exists?

A. In accordance with Sec. 3, Rule ll, claims for payment of monetary benefits wherein
no employer-employee relationship exists belongs within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the labor arbiters.

Accordingly, if on the face of the complaint, it can be ascertained that employer-

employee relationship no longer exists, the case, whether accompanied by an allegation
of illegal dismissal, shall immediately be endorsed by the Regional Director to the
appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)."

33.

Q. What is the so called "Exception clause," in the last sentence of Article 128 (b) of the
Labor Code?

A. In the case of Meteoro o. Creative Creatures, Inc., G.R. No. 171275, July 13, 2009,
it was ruled that the power of the Regional Director to hear and decide the monetary
claims of employees is not absolute. The last sentence of Article 128 (b) of the Labor
Code, otherwise known as the "exception clause," provides an instance when the
Regional Director or his representatives may be divested of jurisdiction over a labor
standards case. Thus, the High Court explained:

Under prevailing jurisprudence, the so-called "exception clause"

has the following elements, all of which must concur;

(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 (Bay
Haven, Inc, et al. v. Abuan, et al., supra; Ex-Bataan Veterans Secur Agency, Inc. v.
Laguesma, supra, at p. 663; Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. Dela Serna, 370 Phil.
872, 887; 312 SCRA 22, 33 (1999); SSK Parts Corporation v. Camas, G.R. No. 85934,
January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 675, 678 [1990]
 34.

Q. Is Art. 128 (b) subject to jurisdictional amount of Articles 129/224 [217]?

A. No. In Balladares v. Peak Ventures Corporation, G.R. No. 161794, June 16, 2009,
the Supreme Court, explained the application of visitorial and enforcement powers of
the DOLE Regional Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standard
laws even where the individual claim exceeds P5,000.00. The Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representatives is now empowered to hear and decide, in
a summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of any amount of wages and
other monetary claims arising out of employer-employee relations at the time of the
inspection, even if the amount of the money claim exceeds P5,000.00. In Ex-Bataan
Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Laguesma, G.R. No. 152396, November 20, 2007,
537 SCRA 651, 652 the Court further elucidated:

In Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. v. Sec. of Labor, we ruled that:

While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter
has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each
employee exceeds P5,000.00, said provisions of law do not contemplate
nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor or his
duly authorized representatives. Rather, said powers are defined and set forth in Article
128 of the Labor Code (as amended by RA.No. 7730)

35.

Q. Kevin, an employee of House of Sports, filed a complaint with the DOLE requesting
the investigation and inspection of the said establishment for labor law violations such
as underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, non-payment of rest day
pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay. House of Sports alleges
that DOLE has no jurisdiction over the employees claims where the aggregate amount of
the claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.00, whether or not accompanied with a
claim for reinstatement. Is the argument of House of Sports tenable?

A. a.Yes, Article 129 of the Labor Code shall apply, and thus, the Labor Arbiter has
jurisdiction;
 b. No, Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code shall apply, and thus, the DOLE Regional
Director has jurisdiction;

c. Yes, if the claim exceeds P5,000.00, the DOLE Secretary loses jurisdiction;

d. No, a voluntarily arbitrator has jurisdiction because the matter involved is a

grievable issue.

B is the correct answer

36.
Q. True or False. Answer True if the statement is true, or False if the statement is false.
Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences: e) The visitorial and
enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional Director to order and enforce compliance
with labor standard laws can be exercised even when the individual claim exceeds
P5,000.00.

A. True. The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives is now

empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involving the
recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of
employer-employee relations at the time of the inspection, even if the amount of the
money claim exceeds P5,000.00. 

37.

Q. In a letter to the Regional Director of Region VII of the Department of Labor and
Employment, employee Ricardo Malalang claims that his employer, the Visayan Sea
Products Corp., has not compensated him for various legal benefits, including overtime
pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay and other monetary benefits totaling P6,000.Despite
the fact that the amount claimed exceeds P5,000.00, how may the Regional Director
exercise jurisdiction over the case? Why?

A. In accordance with the case of Balladares v. Peak Ventures Corp., the Sec of Labor or
his duly authorized representative, through their visitorial and enforcement
powers, is now empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter
involving the recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of
employer- employee relations at the time of the inspection, even if the amount of the
money claim exceeds P5,000.00. 

38.

Q. Does DOLE have the power to make a finding of an employer-employee relationship?

A. Yes. Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is
fully empowered to make a determination as to the existence of an employer-employee
relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power, subject to
judicial review, not review by the NLRC. 

39.

Q. May the DOLE make a determination of whether or not an employer-employee

relationship exists, and if so, to what extent?

A. In People's Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc) v. The Secretary of

the Department of Labor and Employment, the Supreme Court stated that no
limitation in the law was placed upon the power of the DOLE to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. No procedure was laid down
where the DOLE would only make a preliminary finding that the power was
primarily held by the NLRC. The law did not say that the DOLE would first seek the
NLRC's determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, or
that should the existence of the employer- employee relationship be disputed, the
DOLE would refer the matter to the NLRC. The DOLE must have the power to
determine whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists, and from
there to decide whether or not to issue compliance orders in accordance with Art.
128(6) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730.
 40.

Q. Inggo is a drama talent hired on a per drama "participation basis" by DJN Radio
Company. He worked from 8:00 a.m. until 500 p.m., six days a week, on a gross
rate of P80.0 per script, earning an average of P20,000.00 per month. Inggo filed
a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against
DJN Radio for illegal deduction, nonpayment of service incentive leave, and 13th
month pay, among others. On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a
plant level inspection. The DOLE Regional Director issued an order ruling that
Inggo is an employee of DJN Radio, and that Inggo is entitled to his monetary
claims in the total amount of P30,000.00. DJN Radio elevated the case to the
Secretary of Labor who affirmed the order. The case was brought to the Court of
Appeals. The radio station contended that there is no employer-employee relationship
because it was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised, and disciplined
him. Moreover, it argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the NLRC and not
the DOLE because Inggo's claim exceeded P5,000.00.

a. May DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-

employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers?
(2.5%)
b. If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relationship, does the
case fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter considering that the claim of
Inggo is more than P5,000.00. Explain. (2.5%)

A. a. Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is
fully empowered to make a determination as to the existence of an employer-employee
relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power, subject to
judicial review, not review by the NLRC. 

b. No. The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives is now

empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involving the
recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of
employer-employee relations at the time of the inspection, even if the amount of the
money claim exceeds P5,000.00. 

41.

Q. What are the modes of implementation of the visitorial power of the SOLE?

A. The visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or

his/her
duly authorized representatives shall be implemented through any of the
following

a. Routine inspection;

b. Complaint inspection; or

c. Occupational Safety and Health Standards investigation.

42.
Q. Who are the authorized representative of the employer and employees in the conduct
of inspection?

A. For purposes of representation in the conduct of inspection, the following

shall be the authorized representative of the employer and employees:

a. Employer's Representative the owner, president, vice president, man-

ager or any other officers holding managerial positions shall be deemed as
the employer's representative.

b. Employees' Representative -
b.1 For organized establishment, the representative shall be designated by the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
b.2 For unorganized establishment, the representative shall be any
rank-and-file employee present at the time of inspection or representatives
from any of the following Committees, in successive Order:

b.2.1. Labor-Management Committee;

b.2.2. Compliance Committee;
b.2.3. Safety and Health Committee; or
b.2.4. Family Welfare Committee.

In the absence of the above-mentioned, any employee present during

the inspection shall be deemed representative of the employees. (Section
3, Rule lll, Revised Rules on the Administration and Enforcement of Labor Laws
Pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code, as Renumbered)

43.

Q. On what grounds does the Regional Director may dismiss a case?

A. a. The findings of violations by the Labor inspector have no basis in factor in law

b. The employer presented substantial evidence controverting the findings of

the Labor Inspector,

c. The correction or restitution of violations was made by the employer prior to

the issuance of Compliance Order;

d. The parties entered into a compromise agreement, in the mode of

payment or compliance only, during the mandatory Conference, or

e. Any other analogous circumstances warranting the dismissal of the case.

(Section 3, Rule XI, Revised Rules on the Administration and Enforcement of
Labor Laws Pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code, as Renumbered)

44.

Q. When does the decision or resolution of the SOLE attains its finality?

A. If no Motion for Reconsideration is filed by the aggrieved party within ten

(10) days from receipt by the parties of the Resolution or Decision of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, the same shall become final and executor. If a Motion for
Reconsideration is filed, the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall resolved
the same within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. The Resolution or Decision of
the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the Motion for Reconsideration shall be
come final and executor after ten (10) days from the issuance thereof. (Section
12, Rule XIll, Revised Rules on the Administration and Enforcement of Labor
Laws Pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code, as Renumbered)

45.

Q. When does the Regional Director issues a Writ of Execution?

A. Within ten (10) days from issuance of Notice of Finality or receipt of Entry
of Judgment and the entire records of the case, the Regional Director shall issue a Writ
of Execution on his/her own initiative or on motion by any interested party.
(Section1, Rule XIV, Revised Rules on the Administration and Enforcement of Labor
Laws Pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code, as Renumbered)

46.

Q. Can the Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution suspend the execution proceedings?

A. No. The filing of a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution shall not suspend the
execution proceedings. The motion shall be deemed not filed but shall form part of
the records of the case. (Section 5, Rule XIV, Revised Rules on the Administration
and Enforcement of Labor Laws Pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code, as
Renumbered)

47.

Q. How is the inspection/spot check of DOLE commenced?

A. Inspection/spot check will be conducted as a result of the implementation of the

Labor Standards Enforcement Framework (D.O. No. 57-04)

48.

Q. What is the coverage of the said inspection/spot check?

A. An inspection/ spot check shall be a thorough inquiry and verification

of whether or not the employer is complying with the labor Standards Laws.
However, the Regional Director can specify that the inspection/ spot check shall be
limited only to wages, occupational health and safety standards or imminent danger.
All inspection/spot check conducted shall apply to all employees similarly situated.

49.

Q. Who has the authority to inspect?

A. The Regional Director in the first instance shall have the authority to
conduct inspections/ spot checks in workplaces/worksites within his/her
territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Department Order No. 57-04.
 He/she shall issue an inspection authority directing the duly authorized labor
inspector to conduct an inspection/ spot check at the work place/worksite specified
therein.

50.

Q. What is the nature of the visitorial and enforcement power under Article 128 of the
Labor Code?

A. In Dole Philippines v. Esteva, G.R. No. 161115, November 30, 2006,

the Supreme Court explained the nature of visitorial and enforcement
power of the DOLE Secretary under Article 128, in relation to Article
106 of the Labor Code, as follows:

It is obvious that the visitorial and enforcement power granted to the

DOLE Secretary is in the nature of a quasi-judicial power. Quasi-judicial
power has been described by this Court in the following manner Quasi-
judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power
of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it is the
power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to
apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in
enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-
judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of
an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is
incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or
administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions
the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain
the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions
from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial
nature. 

51.

Q. What are the requisites for the exercise of adjudicatory powers under Article 129?

In Rajah Humabon Hotel, Inc. v. Trajano, G.R. Nos. 100222-23,

September 14, 1993, the Supreme Court laid down the requisites for the
exercise of jurisdiction of the Regional Director or hearing officers under Article 129 of
the Labor Code as follows:

A. 1. The claim is presented by an employee or person employed in domes-

tic or household service, or house helper under the code;

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

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

52.
Q. Sara has been working as housemaid for the Bojilov spouses for three (3) years. In
the early morning of July 28, the spouses and Sara were watching the live coverage of
the finals of an Olympic boxing match between a Bulgarian and a Filipino which the
foreign fighter won on points. Peeved by Sara's angry remarks that the scoring was
unfair, the Bojilov spouses fired her on the spot. Sara thereafter filed a complaint with
the Regional Director of the DOLE for unpaid salaries totaling P5,500.00. The Bojilov
spouses moved to dismiss the complaint on the belief that Sara's claim falls within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Sara, however, claimed that the Regional Director can
decide on her claim by virtue of his plenary visitorial powers under Art. 128 and of Art.
129 of the Labor Code, as amended, which empowers the Regional Director to hear and
decide, among others, matters involving recovery of wages: 1) Whose position will you
sustain? Explain. 2) Will your answer be the same if Sara's claim is P4,500.00 with
reinstatement? Explain.

A. 1. I will sustain Sara's position.

The Supreme Court has held in a plethora of cases that the Secretary of Labor or his duly
authorized representatives is now
empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involv-
ng the recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims.arising
out of employer-employee relations at the time of the inspection, even if the
amount of the money claim exceeds P5,000.00. 

2. My answer will not be the same. As such, jurisdiction of which now belongs to the
Labor Arbiter which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over any money claim,
regardless of amount, accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

53.

Q. Where can you file an appeal regarding a decision of the Regional Director/ hearing
officer?

A. Any decision or resolution of the Regional Director or hearing officer

pursuant to the provision may be appealed on the same grounds provided in
Article 229 [223] of this Code, within five (5) calendar days from receipt of a copy of
said decision or resolution, to the National Labor Relations Commission which shall
resolve the appeal within ten (10) calendar days from the submission of the last
pleading required or allowed under its rules. (Article 129, Labor Code)

54.

Q. What are the grounds for appeal?

A. The grounds for appeal are those stated in Article 229 [223] similar
to grounds for appeals involving the decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor
Arbiter as follows:

1. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the

Labor Arbiter,

2. If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion,

including graft and corruption;
 3. If made purely on questions of law; and

4. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave
or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.