G.R. No. L-6409 - Gonzales vs. Secretary of Labor

On June 23, 1952, petitioner Leopoldo Gonzales filed a claim for overtime pay amounting to P13,212.59 before the Wage Administration Service (WAS).
The claim was directed against the respondent, Sy Kot, his employer, initiating the administrative process for investigation and arbitration.

In order to substantiate his claim, petitioner arranged for Sy Kot to be summoned to the witness stand and required him to be placed under oath.
Before any questions were asked, Sy Kot invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination, emphasizing that the existing law on overtime pay also prescribed a penalty for its violation.

Recognizing the legitimacy of the point raised concerning self-incrimination, the investigating officer ordered Sy Kot’s immediate withdrawal from the witness stand.
The ruling of the investigator was later upheld on appeal by the Secretary of Labor in his decision dated November 17, 1952.

Dissatisfied with the administrative ruling, petitioner sought a writ of certiorari, contesting that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and amounted to a grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner argued that, except in criminal cases, there is no rule preventing a litigant from calling an adverse party as a witness. Citing section 83 of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, he maintained that such testimony is permissible provided that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination is properly respected.
The case also involved a contention raised by the Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent Secretary of Labor, who argued that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to appeal to the President of the Philippines. This contention was countered on the basis of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 602, which clearly authorizes any aggrieved party to seek a review of the Secretary’s order directly in the Supreme Court.

Whether the decision to withdraw Sy Kot from the witness stand, based on his premature assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, was correct.
Whether the petitioner’s right to call an adverse party as a witness should prevail in administrative proceedings, given that Rule 123 (Section 83) allows such a practice in civil cases, subject to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Whether the proper procedural remedy was being denied to the petitioner by directing him to seek redress from the President instead of affirming his right under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 602 to directly approach the Supreme Court.