13.
THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, EDGARDO M. AGAPAY
and SAMILLANO A. ALONSO, JR., petitioners,
vs.
PANAY VETERAN’S SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC. and JULITO
JALECO,1 respondent.
G.R. No. 167708 August 22, 2008
CORONA, J.:
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE:
Whether or not the rules of procedure of the NLRC should be applied as suppletory to
respondents’ appeal to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
COMPLAINANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The Secretary of Labor and Employment contends that respondents failed to perfect their
appeal in the manner prescribed by the Labor Code. He further asserts that a motion to reduce the
appeal bond is not allowed by the Labor Code and the Rules of Disposition of Labor Standards
Cases in the Regional Offices (Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases) and does not
suspend the period of appeal. Moreover, the rules of procedure of the NLRC do not apply in this
case.
The CA granted the appeal of Panay Security by applying the ruling in Star Handicraft v
NLRC, which states that, inasmuch as in practice, the NLRC allows the reduction of the appeal
bond upon motion of appellant and on meritorious grounds, it follows that a motion to that effect
may be filed within the reglementary period for appealing. Such motion may be filed in lieu of a
bond which amount is being contested. In the meantime, the appeal is not deemed perfected and
the Labor Arbiter retains jurisdiction over the case until the NLRC has acted on the motion and
appellant has filed the bond as fixed by the NLRC.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
Panay Security Agency hired Edgardo M. Agapay and Samillano Alonzo Jr as security
guards and stationed in Food Industries II (FII) until FII terminated its contract with the agency.
The two were not given assignments. They were not given new assignments and their benefits
being withheld filed a complaint for violation of labor standards.
In this case, respondents admit that they failed to post the required bond when they filed
their appeal to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Because of such failure, the appeal was
never perfected and the May 10, 2001 order of the DOLE-NCR Regional Director attained
finality.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
No. The jurisdiction of the NLRC is separate and distinct from that of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment. In the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, each agency is governed
by its own rules of procedure. In other words, the rules of procedure of the NLRC are different
from (and do not apply in) cases cognizable by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
In ruling that Star Angel Handicraft was applicable by analogy to appeals to the Secretary
of Labor and Employment in cases involving his visitorial and enforcement powers, the CA
effectively reversed Guico, Jr. and Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, thus
arrogating to itself a power that it did not possess, a power only this Court sitting en banc may
exercise. For this reason, the amended decision was invalid as it was rendered by the CA in
excess of its jurisdiction.
Article 128 of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 128. Visitorial and enforcement power. –
(a) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives, including labor
regulation officers, shall have access to employer’s records and premises at any
time of the day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right
to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or
matter which may be necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the
enforcement of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and
regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the
contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee exists, 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 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. 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 finding of the labor
employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary
proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection.
An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment under this Article may be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a
monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a
cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in
the order appealed from.
RATIO:
The spirit that animates all labor laws is the promotion of social justice and the protection
of workers. The posting of a cash or surety bond to perfect an appeal of an order involving a
monetary award has a two-fold purpose: (1) to assure the employee that, if he finally prevails in
the case, the monetary award will be given to him upon dismissal of the employer’s appeal and
(2) to discourage the employer from using the appeal to delay or evade payment of his
obligations to the employee. All laws which govern industrial relations (assuming all things are
equal), the rules governing the proceedings in labor disputes should be interpreted in favor of the
worker.
