This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-03-07 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Finally, petitioner asserts that the Secretary of Labor erred in granting affirmative relief to those who did not appeal.[27] On the contrary, however, the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the monetary award of the Secretary of Labor to the other affected employees. While as a general rule, a party who has not appealed is not entitled to affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below, the Court of Appeals is imbued with sufficient authority and discretion to review matters not otherwise assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.[28] The doctrine in Maternity Children's Hospital v. Secretary of Labor [29] is instructive. In said case, the award is extended to all employees of the establishment concerned, including those who did not sign the complaint. This Court explained, thus: The justification for the award to this group of employees who were not signatories to the complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is relevant to, and exercisable over establishments, not over the individual members/employees, because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is the observance of, and/or compliance by, such firm/establishment with the labor standards regulations. Necessarily, in case of an award resulting from a violation of labor legislation by such establishment, the entire members/employees should benefit therefrom.[30] | |||||