Title
South Motorists Enterprises vs. Tosoc
Case
G.R. No. 87449
Decision Date
Jan 23, 1990
Workers sued SOUTH MOTORISTS for unpaid allowances; Regional Director awarded P184,689.12. Jurisdiction affirmed for claims ≤P5,000; higher claims remanded to Labor Arbiter.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 87449)

Background and Procedural History

Beginning in January 1983, complaints were filed by the workers before the Naga City District Office of the Department of Labor and Employment. A series of inspections and hearings were conducted, where South Motorists consistently failed to provide required employment records, attributing their absence to logistical issues concerning their main office in Manila. The Labor Regulation Officers reported back, leading to a monetary award for the workers, which was not contested successfully by South Motorists.

Jurisdictional Issue

The central issue before the Court is the jurisdiction of the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment to adjudicate money claims. South Motorists contended that only Labor Arbiters have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine monetary claims involving employer-employee relationships, particularly those exceeding P5,000. Conversely, the respondents argued for the jurisdiction of Regional Directors based on specific provisions within the Labor Code.

Applicable Law

The case hinges on Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715. Article 129 allows Regional Directors to handle claims for recovery of wages up to P5,000, while Article 217 grants Labor Arbiters exclusive jurisdiction over employer-employee disputes involving claims above this amount. The laws confirmed that the claims involved in this case qualify for deliberation based on their monetary value.

Findings of the Court

The Court elucidated that the award of P184,689.12 included multiple claims, some of which exceeded the P5,000 threshold, thus necessitating handling by Labor Arbiters. Specifically, the Court identified that claims belonging to several individuals exceeded that amount and should be remanded for further proceedings. However, claims not exceeding this value were affirmed as valid under the authority of the Regional Directors.

Procedural Fairness and Opportunity to Present Evidence

Further, the Court addressed South Motorists’ complaints regarding the basis of the decision being a mere inspection report. It noted that the enterprise had ample opportunities to present its case and failed to comply with procedural requirements concerning r

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.