FACTS:
The case revolves around the jurisdiction of representatives to handle money claims arising from employer-employee relations in a summary proceeding. EBVSAI, the petitioner, raises concerns regarding the violation of due process in the proceedings before the Secretary of Labor. Additionally, there is a question regarding the sufficiency of the documents presented by EBVSAI to challenge the findings of the Regional Director and whether these documents should be regarded as evidence. Lastly, the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the Secretary of Labor's ruling is also under scrutiny.
ISSUES:
-
Whether the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
-
Whether the computation of the deficiencies due to each private respondent was valid
RULING:
-
The Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7730 (RA 7730), has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. The limitations under Articles 129 and 217(6) of the Labor Code no longer apply to the Secretary of Labor's visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128(b). The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives are empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of employer-employee relations at the time of the inspection.
-
The computation of the deficiencies due to each private respondent was valid. The Regional Director and the Secretary of Labor found that EBVSAI failed to present evidence to controvert the findings of the Regional Director. The authenticity and veracity of EBVSAI's documentary evidence were also doubted. Therefore, the computation based on the findings of the Regional Director was upheld.
PRINCIPLES:
-
The Secretary of Labor's visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128(b) of the Labor Code are no longer subject to the limitations under Articles 129 and 217(6) of the Labor Code under Republic Act No. 7730.
-
In summary proceedings before the Secretary of Labor, an employer must be accorded due process and given opportunities to present evidence to controvert the findings of the Regional Director.
-
The Regional Director's findings, if supported by evidence, are entitled to great weight and are presumed to be correct. It is the employer's burden to prove otherwise.