This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-07-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is well to note that the Regional Director's visitorial and enforcement powers have undergone a series of amendments. Confusion was engendered with the promulgation of the decision in Servando's Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment.[18] In that case, this Court held that to harmonize Articles 217 (a) (6),[19] 129,[20] and 128 of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor should be deemed as clothed with plenary visitorial powers to order the inspection of all establishments where labor is employed, and to look into all possible violations of labor laws and regulations; but the power to hear and decide employees' claims exceeding P5,000.00 for each employee should be left to the Labor Arbiter as the exclusive repository of the power to hear and decide such claims. | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The CA granted the petition, ruling that the Regional Director had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, because the claims of each of the petitioners exceeded P5,000.00, and the power to adjudicate such claims belonged to the Labor Arbiter, pursuant to Servando's, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor.[10] The appellate court ratiocinated that this exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters was confirmed by Article 129 of the Labor Code, which excludes from the jurisdiction of the Regional Directors or any hearing officer of the DOLE the power to hear and decide claims of employees arising from employer-employee relations exceeding the amount of P5,000.00 for each employee. The dispositive portion of the decision, thus, reads as follows: | |||||
|
2007-03-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, the petition would still fail even if we decide the same on the merits. Petitioners' ground for annulment of the three Issuances is the alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the DOLE Regional Director in awarding amounts which exceeded P5,000.00. Petitioners cite the 1991 Minute Resolution in 5D's Liners v. Department of Labor and Employment,[10] which in turn cited Servando's Incorporated v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[11] thus - | |||||