G.R. No. L-76710 - Ong Sr. vs. Parel

The petitioner, Antonio Ong, Sr., is the owner of the Mansion House Restaurant located at No. 11, J. M. Basa Street, Iloilo City.
The private respondents are thirteen complainant workers and representatives of the labor union headed by Rowena Reteracion, which represents issues regarding non-compliance with labor standard laws.

On July 28, 1986, Rowena Reteracion, president of the Mansion House Genuine Labor Union, filed a request for an inspection of the petitioner’s establishment with MOLE’s Regional Office No. VI in Iloilo City.
The inspection was prompted by alleged failures of the petitioner to comply with labor laws, including the non-payment or underpayment of the minimum wage, emergency cost of living allowance, 13th month pay, and 5-day incentive leave pay.
On July 30, 1986, representatives from MOLE’s regional office conducted an on-the-spot inspection at Bacolod City pursuant to Office Order No. 027, series of 1986.
The petitioner could not produce his business records, allegedly in the possession of his accountant, and was given five days until August 4, 1986 to comply.

On August 4, 1986, MOLE’s Labor Standard Welfare Office revisited the premises to secure the employment records. The petitioner again failed to present the required documents.
A subpoena duces tecum was issued on August 7, 1986, requiring the petitioner to submit daily time records and payrolls.
Instead of complying, on August 12, 1986, the petitioner sent a letter requesting clarification as to whether the inspection was routine or complaint-based.
The final notice to produce records was on August 14, 1986, on which the petitioner still failed to comply.

On September 2, 1986, a narrative report was submitted by MOLE’s officers detailing the findings of the inspection, including the testimony of the thirteen employees and a computation of the claims.
On October 7, 1986, the public respondent (Henry M. Parel, Regional Director) issued the Final Order for Compliance ordering the petitioner to pay a sum of P254,841.26 based on the following breakdown:

Lack of jurisdiction by the public respondent since money claims of workers fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission and labor arbiters under Article 217 of the Labor Code.
Denial of due process as he was not given copies of the inspections’ affidavits and narrative report.

On November 18, 1986, the public respondent denied the motion for reconsideration, justifying his jurisdiction under Article 128(b) of the Labor Code and noting the petitioner’s failure to comply with requirements under Section 11, Rule X, Book III of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code.
On December 9, 1986, private respondents moved for the issuance of a writ of execution of the Final Order.
On December 12, 1986, a writ of execution was issued, and the petitioner subsequently issued a postdated check for P254,857.26.
On December 15, 1986, the petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari to annul the orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, abuse of discretion, and alleged denial of due process.

Article 128, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the Labor Code were cited to justify the visitorial and enforcement powers of the public respondent.
MOLE Policy Instructions No. 7 limits the public respondent’s authority to awards not exceeding P100,000.00.
Article 217 of the Labor Code confers original and exclusive jurisdiction to Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission regarding money claims of workers.
Supporting cases and legal principles regarding statutory construction and the right to due process were cited from precedents such as Aparri v. Court of Appeals, Divine Word High School v. NLRC, and People v. Retania y Rodelas.

Whether the Regional Director, acting under Article 128 of the Labor Code, has jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction in adjudicating money claims that are within the exclusive realm of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code.
The extent of the powers of visitorial and enforcement by the public respondent: are these solely for ensuring compliance with labor standards, or do they extend to determining the appropriate monetary claims against the employer?

Whether the petitioner was denied due process in that he was not provided copies of the affidavits and narrative report presented by the MOLE inspectors.
Whether the opportunities afforded during the inspection process were adequate for the petitioner to present his side and refute the findings.

Whether the P100,000.00 limit under MOLE Policy Instructions No. 7 implies a limitation on adjudicatory power over money claims, restricting the public respondent's authority only to enforcement of labor standards.