Guerrero III, Wilfredo Vivencio, O.

20200110610

V. L Enterprises v CA
GR No. 167512
March 12 2007

Facts:
On 10 March 1998, the DOLE conducted an inspection of the establishment of
petitioner company V.L. Enterprises. On 5 May 1999, then Regional Director
Maximo Lim issued an Order directing petitioners V.L to pay Camio Francisco
and twenty two workers similarly situated the total amount of EIGHT
HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
SEVENTY EIGHT PESOS (₱822,978.00) corresponding to their claims.
On 11 August 2004, Acting NCR Regional Director Ciriaco A. Lagunzad issued
an Alias Writ of Execution, directing petitioners to pay respondent Camilo
Francisco and several similarly situated employees the sum of ₱422,978.00.

Issue:
Is the issuance of the writ of execution by the NCR Regional Director proper.

Law:
RA 7730 Sec 1 amending Article 128(b)

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of respondent CA
Opinion:
Pursuant to Section 1 of Republic Act 7730 [Approved on June 2, 1994] which
amended Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or his duly authorized representative, in the exercise of their
visitorial and enforcement powers, are now authorized to issue compliance
orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other
labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement
officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, sans any
restriction with respect to the jurisdictional amount of ₱5,000.00 provided under
Article 129 and Article 217 of the Code.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives

shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor
standards provisions of the Code and other labor legislation based on the
findings of the labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety
engineers made in the course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized
representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the
findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues
supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of
inspection.

Case History:

On 14 February 2000, Undersecretary Jose M. Español, Jr. rendered a

Resolution denying the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent.

On 31 July 2002, DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas affirmed the 14

February 2000 Order and deemed the appealed order to have become final and
executory.

On 9 November 2004, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for lack of
merit in the first assailed Resolution. Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, but the same was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals in
the second assailed Resolution.
Cireneo Bowling Plaza v Sensing
GR No. 146752
January 14 2015

Facts:
On November 27, 1995, Eligio Paolo, Jr., an employee of petitioner, filed a
letter complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE for
short), Dagupan District Office, Dagupan City, requesting for the
inspection/investigation of petitioner for various labor law violations like
underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, non-payment of rest day pay, overtime
pay, holiday pay and service incentive leave pay. Pursuant to the visitorial and
enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, his duly
authorized representative under Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended,
conducted inspections on petitioner's establishment the following day.

Issue:
Does the Regional Director have jurisdiction over the instant case.

Law:
Article 129 and 217 of the Labor Code.
Section 1 of Republic Act 7730

Ruling:
The Court ruled that the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the instant case.

Opinion:
The visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional Director to order
and enforce compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised even where
the individual claim exceeds P5,000.00.
While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor
Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate money
claims of each employee exceed P5,000.00, said provisions of law do not
contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representatives.

The aforequoted provision explicitly excludes from its coverage Articles 129
and 217 of the Labor Code by the phrase "(N)otwithstanding the provisions of
Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary . . ." thereby retaining and
further strengthening the power of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized
representative to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards
provisions of said Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of
labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made
in the course of inspection.

Case History:
DOLE Regional Office ordered respondent pay them the total amount of
P377,500.58 representing the employee’s unpaid/underpaid wages, 13th month
pay, holiday premiums, rest day pay and overtime premiums

On March 30, 1999, DOLE Undersecretary Jose Espanol dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the order dated February 7, 1997 of the DOLE Regional Director.
Peoples Broadcasting Service v DOLE
GR No. 179652
March 6 2012

Facts:
Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner with
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. VII,
Cebu City, for illegal deduction, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13th
month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of
benefits, delayed payment of wages and noncoverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and
Philhealth.1 After the conduct of summary investigations, and after the parties
submitted their position papers, the DOLE Regional Director found that private
respondent was an employee of petitioner, and was entitled to his money claims.

Issue:
Does DOLE have jurisdiction over this case.

Law:
RA 7730

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner.

Opinion:
The prior decision of this Court in the present case accepts such answer, but
places a limitation upon the power of the DOLE, that is, the determination of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be co-extensive with
the visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE. But even in conceding the
power of the DOLE to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, the Court held that the determination of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is still primarily within the power of the
NLRC, that any finding by the DOLE is merely preliminary.
The determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship by the
DOLE must be respected. The expanded visitorial and enforcement power of
the DOLE granted by RA 7730 would be rendered nugatory if the alleged
employer could, by the simple expedient of disputing the employer-employee
relationship, force the referral of the matter to the NLRC. The Court issued the
declaration that at least a prima facie showing of the absence of an employer-
employee relationship be made to oust the DOLE of jurisdiction. But it is
precisely the DOLE that will be faced with that evidence, and it is the DOLE
that will weigh it, to see if the same does successfully refute the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.

Case History:
The Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed petitioner’s appeal.
In the Decision of this Court, the CA Decision was reversed and set aside, and
the complaint against petitioner was dismissed.