Guico vs. Quisumbing (298 SCRA 666 (1998) ) - Digested

Regional Director (Jurisdiction)
FRANCIS GUICO, JR., doing business under the name and style of COPYLANDIA SERVICES & TRADING
vs.
HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LEONARDO QUISUMBING, THE OFFICE OF REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF REGION I, DEP’T OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ROSALINA CARRERA, ET. AL..
G.R. 131750 (November 16, 1998)
FACTS:
The case started when the Office of the Regional Director, Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
Region I, San Fernando, La Union, received a letter-complaint dated April25, 1995, requesting for an
investigation of petitioner's establishment, Copylandia Services &Trading, for violation of labor standards laws.
Pursuant to the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representative under Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, inspections were conducted at
Copylandia's outlets on April 27 and May 2, 1995. The inspections yielded the following violations involving
twenty-one (21) employees who are copier operators: (1) underpayment of wages; (2) underpayment
of 13th month pay; and (3) no service incentive leave with pay.
Regional Director Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant to the Rules on the Disposition of
Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment on September
16, 1987, respondent Copylandia Services and Trading thru its owner/manager Mr. Francisco Guico, is hereby
ORDERED to pay the employees the amount of ONE MILLION EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY
SIX PESOS AND SEVENTY CENTAVOS (P1,081,756.70)
ISSUE: WON the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the labor standards case.

HELD:
Yes. Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case citing Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended. We
sustain the jurisdiction of the respondent Secretary. As the respondent correctly pointed out, this Court's
ruling in Servando that the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to order and enforce compliance with
labor standard laws cannot be exercised where the individual claim exceeds P5,000.00, can no longer be
applied in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 7730 amending Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, viz: Art. 128 (b)
Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the
relationship of employer-employee still 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 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. 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 are putable bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from. (Emphasis supplied.)
The records of the House of Representatives show that Congressmen Alberto S. Veloso and Eriberto V. Loreto
sponsored the law. In his sponsorship speech, Congressman Veloso categorically declared that "this bill seeks
to do away with the jurisdictional limitations imposed through said ruling (referring to Servando) and to
finally settle any lingering doubts on the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment." Petitioner's reliance on Servando is thus untenable.

Guico vs. Quisumbing (298 SCRA 666 (1998) ) - Digested

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guico vs. Quisumbing (298 SCRA 666 (1998) ) - Digested

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guico vs. Quisumbing (298 SCRA 666 (1998) ) - Digested

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Director (Jurisdiction)

You might also like