Case Digest (G.R. No. 131750)
Facts:
Francisco Guico, Jr. v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor & Employment Leonardo A. Quisumbing, The Office of Regional Director of Region I, Department of Labor & Employment, Rosalina Carrera, et al., G.R. No. 131750, November 16, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Francisco Guico, Jr., doing business as Copylandia Services & Trading, was the respondent-employer in a labor standards complaint filed by twenty-one (21) copier operators before the Office of the Regional Director, DOLE Region I. Following inspections on April 27 and May 2, 1995, the DOLE found violations consisting of underpayment of wages, underpayment of 13th month pay, and absence of service incentive leave with pay. A hearing was conducted on June 14, 1995, where wage and commission schemes for the operators were described.
On July 13, 1995, petitioner submitted a Joint Affidavit and individual Receipt, Waiver and Quitclaim documents purportedly signed by the employees releasing petitioner from claims. At an investigatory hearing on July 21, 1995, several employees repudiated those waivers, alleging coercion and claiming the increase in daily wages effective July 1, 1995, came with elimination of commissions and incentives. On October 30, 1995, Regional Director Guerrero N. Cirilo issued an Order awarding the employees P1,081,756.70 in backwages, rejected the pre‑filing quitclaims as ineffective, and directed proof of payment or issuance of a writ of execution.
Petitioner filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal and posted an appeal bond of P105,000.00 but later sought reduction of the bond, contending hardship; he also sought a stay for possible settlement. A partial compromise was reported on January 10, 1996: fifteen employees executed Releases for modest sums, while four employees (Laureta Clauna, Majestina Raymundo, Leilani Barrozo and Rosalina Carrera) refused settlement and insisted on the Regional Director’s full award of P231,841.06 (their portion). The Regional Director informed petitioner by letter dated February 23, 1996 that the posted bond was deficient and directed him to post an additional P126,841.06 within ten days.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration to reduce the bond and later (March 13, 1996) explained financial inability; he subsequently filed a Motion to Admit Additional Bond on February 13, 1997 and posted the additional P126,841.06. The Secretary of Labor denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated December 3, 1996 on the ground that the Regional Director’s direction in a “mere letter” could not be the subject of reconsideration or appeal before the Secretary, and concluded that petitioner failed to perfect his appeal under Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended. In an October 24, 1997 Order the Secretary again denied reconsideration, ruled that Republic Act No. 77...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary (and his duly authorized representative) have jurisdiction to hear and decide the labor standards case despite the employees’ individual claims exceeding P5,000.00?
- Did petitioner perfect his appeal to the Secretary by posting the required appeal bond under Article 128(b) of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)