Republic of the Philippines was conducted on subject establishment by Labor

SUPREME COURT Standards and Welfare Officer Dalo T. Basa on May

Manila 20, 1987, but the same did not materialize since no
records were presented for examination, as the
same are allegedly all being kept at the firm's Manila
EN BANC
Office. Nevertheless, LSWO Basa advised the firm's
Officer-in-Charge, Mr. Virgilio Villa-Real to present
G.R. No. 82805 June 29, 1989 the said records for verification at our Dagupan
Labor Office. However, to date and despite the fact
that respondent has been duly notified to present
BRIAD AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,
the same, no records were presented for
vs.
verification.
HONORABLE DIONISIO DELA SERNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
UNDERSECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED xxx xxx xxx
SERVICES (TUPAS)-WFTU LOCAL CHAPTER NO. R01-005, ALFRED
DELA CRUZ, ET AL., * respondents.
Respondent's repeated failure to appear during the
scheduled conferences despite due notices, is
x---------------------------------------------------x construed as a waiver of its right to adduce evidence
to controvert the above-noted claims. Likewise, its
failure to present the required employment records
G.R. No. 83225 June 29, 1989
is presumed to mean that the presentation of the
same will be against the interest of the respondent
L.M. CAMUS ENGINEERING CORPORATION, petitioner, and said records will prove the claims of herein
vs. complainants.
THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE HON. UNDERSECRETARY
DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, VICTORIANO ATIENZA, JR., JOSNERI
Based on the records on hand, the
DIOCARES, REYNALDO PAREÑO, WINNIE ORTOSIT, NELEN SEVERINO,
workers/members of the complaining Union have
MARLON RESONABLE, ROLANDO ALDANESE, ALICIO SEBIAO,
been found to be underpaid of their wages and
CARLINTO PAQUERO, JULIAN GOSONA, ROLANDO CASIMERO,
unpaid of their ECOLA, holiday pay, service incentive
ALFREDO DE LEON, VICTORIANO MACHANG, ARMANDO SALAZAR,
leave pay and 13th month pay from January 1984 to
ANITO DE JESUS, FRANCISCO DELGADO, PAQUITO PITULAN, DANILO
April 1987. The claims for non-payment of overtime
CENTINO, ROMEO DELOS SANTOS, RUBEN LARA, ROGELIO
pay and night shift differential pay have not been
MAGHUYOR, BEN ABDANI, RUDY PALASUGLO, WILLIAM BALDADO,
clearly shown and proven, hence, are not included in
ROMEO LABIGAN, TANNY JANOLO and EDGAR A. OREZ, respondents.
the computed deficiencies. 2

Corazon R. Paulino for petitioner in G.R. No. 82805.

Director Balbin then held against Briad Agro Development Corporation,
and disposed as follows:
Raoul B. Agrava & Associates for petitioner in G.R. No. 83225.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and
Lar, Comia, Manala & Associates for respondents in G.R. No. 82805. considering further that said deficiencies form part
of the legal remuneration of herein employees,
respondent is hereby ordered to satisfy the a and
Jesus Balicanta for respondents in G.R. No. 83225.
pay the total amount of FIVE MILLION THREE
HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
SARMIENTO, J.: NINE PESOS and 30/100 (P5,369,909.30) in the
manner above-stated, within fifteen (15) days from
receipt hereof, and to submit proof of payment
Submitted for decision are these two consolidated cases, both in the
within the same period. Otherwise, a Writ of
nature of challenges to the jurisdiction of the various Regional Directors
Execution win be issued to the proper sheriffs to
of the Department of Labor and Employment to act on money claims. 1
enforce this Order. The claims for non-payment of
overtime pay and night shift differential pay, are
ANTECEDENT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS. hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

I. G.R. No. 82805. Let the parties be notified accordingly.

This case originated from a complaint filed on February 21, 1987 to SO ORDERED. 3
recover unpaid wages and wage supplements filed with Regional Director
Filomeno Balbin of the Labor Department's Regional Office No. I sitting in
In its appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, Briad Agro
San Fernando, La Union. The facts appear in his order:
Development contended that the Regional Director has no authority to
entertain pecuniary claims of workers, following this Court's ruling
This case arose out of a complaint filed by TRADE in Zambales Base Metals, Inc. v. Minister of Labor, 4 in which we held that
UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES money claims are the exclusive domain of the labor arbiters. The National
(TUPAS) WFTU Local Chapter No. ROI-005, against Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal on the strength of
respondent agricultural firm, for alleged Executive Order No. 111, 5amending Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, in
underpayment/non-payment of minimum wage, which jurisdiction to so act on monetary claims was supposedly granted
ECOLA, overtime pay, legal holiday pay, night shift to regional directors. In its petition to this Court, Briad Agro Development
differential pay, 13th month pay and service reiterates its jurisdictional challenge.
incentive leave pay.
II. G.R. No. 83225.
Acting on this complaint and pursuant to a
corresponding authority issued, a routine inspection
The money award in this case, as and for unpaid emergency cost of living complainants but respondent chose to ignore the
allowances, and thirteenth-month and holiday pays, was granted said directives; that during the hearing of
originally in favor of seventy-four employees of L.M. Camus Engineering respondent's motion on November 25, 1982 each
following an inspection by Regional Director David Kong of the complainant testified that no quitclaim was ever
Department of Labor's Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City. In his executed by them, although they remembered
order, issued on May 16, 1983, Director Kong condemned the corporation having signed a certain document which respondent
to pay a total of P146,181.20. Forty-seven employees were, however, thru its representative made them believe to be
later dropped from the case following an amicable settlement with the simply an evidence of payment of salary and not a
petitioner. The facts are as follows: quitclaim.

Records disclosed that on the basis of the complaint On May 16, 1983, the Regional Director issued an
filed by the herein complainants, an inspection was Order denying respondent's motion.
conducted in respondent's premises but both the
project manager and the project engineer were out
On May 27, 1983, a Motion to Dismiss was filed
of town, except the internal auditor who informed
alleging that "the parties have agreed to settle
the Labor Regulations Officer (now known as Labor
amicably the individual claims of the various
Standards and Welfare Officer) that he had no
complainants who are listed in the order of 25
authority to produce the employment records
October 1982."
needed; that the internal auditor promised to inform
the project manager and the project engineer about
the required employment records but no Respondent likewise moved for the reconsideration
information was received since then. Consequently, of the May 16, 1983-Order on the ground that the
a subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Regional Regional Office never had any jurisdiction over the
Director on August 20, 1982, addressed to the nature of the dispute. 6
Manager of respondent company ordering the latter
to submit the pertinent employment records before
The petitioner then appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor, an
the Field Service Division, Regional Office No. IX,
appeal that did not prosper. On behalf of the Secretary, Undersecretary
Zamboanga City on August 25, 1982 at 9:30 a.m.
Dionisio de la Serna affirmed Director Kong's award, as modified.
Notwithstanding receipt of such subpoena duces
tecum and the follow-up letter to the said Manager
of respondent, plus another subpoena addressed to The petitioner moved for reconsideration, impugning the authority of the
respondent's project manager, respondent failed to Regional Director. Undersecretary Dionisio dela Serna denied
submit the required pertinent records. reconsideration and sustained the Regional Director's jurisdiction.
Consequently, on October 25, 1982 the Regional
Director issued the Order in dispute, copy of which
The petitioner, in this petition, primarily questions Regional Directors'
was received by respondent on November 1982.
jurisdiction to pass upon money claims.

On November 18, 1982, counsel for respondent,

III. The cases before the Court; the question of
Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos, filed a motion for extension
jurisdiction.
of time to file his motion to set aside and/or
reconsider Order dated 25 October 1982.
The petitioners in these two consolidated cases submit that the
jurisdiction over money claims is exclusive on the Labor Arbiters of the
On November 24, 1982, respondent filed a Motion to
National Labor Relations Commission, by force of Article 217 of the Labor
Set Aside and/or Reconsider the Order dated 25
Code:
October 1982 on the following grounds namely:

ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the

1. That the Order dated 25 October 1982 was issued
Commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have the
without notice and hearing.
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
within thirty (30) working days after submission of
2. That the questioned Order is not supported by the the case by the parties for decision, the following
facts and the law of the case. cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or
non-agricultural:
Respondent argues that the awards are void because
the composition of each award was not indicated; 1. Unfair labor practice cases;
that complainants were either its employees or that
of its subcontractor Carlos Balinagay; that of the 74
2. Those that workers may file involving wages,
complainants only three, namely: Julian Gajana, Jose
hours of work and other terms and conditions of
Casimora and Jose Roxas failed to execute
employment;
quitclaims; and that for these reasons the disputed
Order may be validly set aside and/or reconsidered.
3. All money claims of workers, including those
based on non- payment or underpayment of wages,
Complainants, thru counsel, filed their opposition to
overtime compensation, separation pay and other
the aforesaid Motion to Set. Aside Order dated 25
benefits provided by law or appropriate agreement,
October 1982. They maintain that the Order in
except claims for employees' compensation, social
question was issued in the valid exercise of the
security, medicare and maternity benefits.
visitorial and enforcement power of the Minister
(now Secretary) of Labor and Employment, thru the
Regional Director as his duly authorized 4. Cases involving household services; and
representative; that before the said Order was
issued, respondent or its representative was
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of
directed time and again by the Regional Director to
this Code, including questions involving the legality
submit the pertinent employment records of
of strikes and lockouts.
 (b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate The language of the provision is indeed broad enough to encompass cases
jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor over which Labor Arbiters had hitherto exercised exclusive jurisdiction.
Arbiters. 7 We quote, in part:

The Solicitor General, on the other hand, relies on the provisions of ... the Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly
Executive Order No. 111, amending, among other things, Article 128, authorized representatives shall have the power to
paragraph (b), of the Labor Code: order and administer, after due notice and hearing,
compliance with the labor standards provisions of
this Code and other labor legislation ... 12
(b) The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the
contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the
relationship of employer-employee still exists the We can no longer accept the contention that the Regional Directors'
Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly singular concern, under the said provision, is to ensure compliance with
authorized representatives shall have the power to labor standards, such as industrial safety and similar concerns.
order and administer, after due notice and hearing, In Zambales Base Metals, it was our reading of Section 128(b) of the Code
compliance with the labor standards provisions of that the aforesaid labor officials' authority stopped there, 13 but we have,
this Code and other labor legislation based on the in view of the amendment under Executive Order No. 111, since taken a
findings of labor regulation officers or industrial second look. As we said, the Executive Order vests in Regional Directors
safety engineers made in the course of inspection, jurisdiction, "[t]he provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary
and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate notwithstanding", it would have rendered such a proviso-and the
authority for the enforcement of their orders except amendment itself-useless to say that they (Regional Directors) retained
in case where the employer contests the findings of the self-same restricted powers, despite such an amendment. It is
the labor regulation officer and raises issues which fundamental that a statute is to be read in a manner that would breathe
cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary life into it, rather than defeat it. At any rate, and as we have observed, the
matters that are not verifiable in the normal course language of Executive Order No. 111 is comprehensive enough to extend
of inspection. 8 to the resolution of employer-employee controversies covered by Article
217.
He further submits that, as a consequence, Zambales Base Metals, Inc. v.
Minister of Labor is no longer controlling (although in his comment in G.R. It is interesting to note that the Government itself (through the Solicitor
No. 83225, he maintains that it is still in force and effect. 9 ) General) considers Zambales Base Metals v. Minister of Labor as Executive
Order No. 11l's very raison d'etre. 14 If this is so, the intent of the legislator
to grant Regional Directors the jurisdiction now impugned cannot any
IV. The Court's decision.
more be clearer.

The Court rules that, in view of the promulgation of Executive Order No.
Being a curative statute, the Executive Order in question has
111, Zambales Base Metals v. Minister of Labor is no longer good law.
retrospective effect. In Garcia v. Martinez, 15 we held that legislation
Executive Order No. 111 is in the character of a curative law, that is to say,
"which is in the nature of a curative statute" 16 has "retrospective
it was intended to remedy a defect that, in the opinion of the legislature
application to a pending proceeding." 17 Hence, these cases should be
(the incumbent Chief Executive in this case, in the exercise of her
decided in the light of the presidential issuance in question, although they
lawmaking powers under the Freedom Constitution) had attached to the
might have come pending further proceedings. Be that as it may, the
provision subject of the amendment. This is clear from the proviso: "The
records show that G.R. No. 82805 had come about during the effectivity of
provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding . . ."
Executive Order No. 111. (In G.R. No. 82805, the complaint was filed on
Plainly, the amendment was meant to make both the Secretary of Labor
February 21, 1987; in G.R. No. 83225, the material dates do not appear in
(or the various Regional Directors) and the Labor Arbiters share
the records but the order decreeing the money award was issued on
jurisdiction.
October 25, 1982 and a subpoena duces tecum appears to have been
issued, in connection with the inspections that prefaced the complaint, on
Curative statutes have long been considered valid in this jurisdiction. August 20, 1982. 18 ) With respect to G.R. No. 82805, therefore, the
Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid Executive Order squarely applies, while insofar as G.R. No. 83225 is
under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with. They are, concerned, we give it a retroactive operation.
however, subject to exceptions. For one, they must not be against the
Constitution and for another, they cannot impair vested rights or the
With respect moreover, to Camus Engineering's petition (G.R. No. 83225),
obligation of contracts. 10 It has not been shown in this case that these
it is the Court's considered opinion that the petitioner is estopped from
exceptions apply.
assailing Director Kong's jurisdiction. The rule is that a party may not
attack a tribunal's jurisdiction and at the same time ask for affirmative
That Executive Order No. 111 intended to. make the jurisdiction to pass relief 19 The records disclose that the petitioner had entered into an
upon money claims, among the other cases mentioned by Article 217 of amicable settlement with a total of forty-seven employees and had it
the Labor Code, concurrent between the Secretary of Labor (or Regional approved by Director Kong. The petitioner must, therefore, be said to
Directors) and the Labor Arbiters is clear from its perambulatory clauses, have accepted Director Kong's jurisdiction. It cannot now assail it.
to wit:
Accordingly, we sustain the jurisdiction of the respondents Regional
WHEREAS, the welfare of the workers is a primary Directors.
concern of the government.
WHEREFORE, these petitions are DISMISSED. No costs.
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend or repeal
provisions of laws that repress the rights of workers
SO ORDERED.
and of their trade unions. 11

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Griño-

Executive Order No. 111, it is obvious, was enacted to widen workers'
Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
access to the Government for redress of grievances.

Fernan, C.J. and Cruz, Gutierrez, Jr. JJ., concur.