Case Digest (G.R. No. L-76710)
Facts:
Antonio Ong, Sr. v. Henry M. Parel, G.R. No. 76710, December 21, 1987, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Antonio Ong, Sr., owner of the Mansion House Restaurant in Iloilo City; the public respondent is Henry M. Parel, Regional Director of the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE); the private respondents are thirteen employees including Rowena Reteracion, president of the Mansion House Genuine Labor Union.On July 28, 1986, Rowena Reteracion requested inspection of the Mansion House by MOLE Regional Office No. VI for alleged violations of labor standards (minimum wage, emergency COLA, 13th month pay, 5-day incentive leave). Pursuant to Office Order No. 027 (1986), MOLE representatives made an on-the-spot inspection on July 30, 1986; the petitioner failed to produce business records and was given until August 4, 1986 to present them. Inspectors interviewed thirteen employees who executed affidavits supporting the complaints.
A second visit occurred on August 4, 1986; the petitioner again did not produce records. On August 7, 1986, the regional office issued a subpoena duces tecum for daily time records and payrolls. Instead of complying, the petitioner on August 12 sent a letter asking whether the inspection was routine or complaint-based. He again failed to comply by the August 14 deadline. A narrative report of the inspection with computations attached was submitted to the Regional Director on September 2, 1986.
On October 7, 1986 the Regional Director issued a Final Order for Compliance directing petitioner to pay P254,841.26 to the thirteen complainants (breakdown: underpayment of minimum wage P136,087.98; nonpayment of emergency COLA P107,769.93; underpayment of 13th month pay P8,463.35; nonpayment of 5-day incentive leave pay P2,520.00). On October 13, 1986 the petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing lack of jurisdiction (money claims are within the exclusive province of the Labor Arbiters/NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code) and denial of due process (he was not furnished the affidavits and narrative report). On November 18, 1986 the Regional Director denied reconsideration, relying on his visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules (Book III, Rule X, Section 11).
Private respondents moved for a writ of execution on December 9, 1986; the Regional Director issued the writ on December 12, 1986 and the petitioner issued a postdated check for the amount. On December 15, 1986 the petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court contesting the Final Order for Compliance (Oct. 7, 1986), the denia...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Director of MOLE act without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining and adjudicating the private respondents' money claims and in issuing the Final Order for Compliance and the writ of execution?
- Assuming jurisdiction, was due process observed in the issuance of the questioned o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)