Student: NICO ARNOLD D.
PICASO 2A
CASE NO. 13
I. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, Edgardo M. Agapay and Samillano
A. Alonso, Jr., petitioners
vs.
Panay Veteran’s Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. and Julito Jaleco,
respondent
G.R. No. 167708 August 22, 2008
Ponente: CORONA, J.:
II. Issue:
a) Whether or not respondents could still appeal the Labor Secretary’s decision.
b) Whether or not the NLRC’s Rules of Procedure apply.
III. Facts:
Manuel M. Cayabyab, a labor employment officer of the DOLE-NCR, conducted an
inspection of respondent security agency on October 30, 2000. Respondent security
agency failed to present its payroll as well as the daily time records submitted by
petitioners Agapay and Alonso, Jr. Such failure was noted as a violation. Cayabyab then
issued a notice of inspection to respondent security agency through its authorized
representative, respondent Julito Jaleco. He emphasized the need for respondents either to
comply with labor standards by paying the claims of petitioners Agapay and Alonso, Jr.
Respondents neither paid the claims of petitioners Agapay and Alonso, Jr. nor questioned
the labor employment officer’s findings. The respondents then filed an appeal to the
Labor Secretary with a motion to reduce cash or surety bond. The Labor Secretary
dismissed their appeal. They then went to the CA for recourse and their case was initially
dismissed but their Motion for Reconsideration was granted and CA amended their
decision to allow respondents to pursue their appeal.
IV. Complainants Argument:
Petitioner Labor Secretary contends that respondents failed to perfect their appeal in the
manner prescribed by the Labor Code. He further asserts that a motion to reduce the
appeal bond is not allowed by the Labor Code and the Rules of Disposition of Labor
Standards Cases in the Regional Offices (Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards
Cases) and does not suspend the period of appeal. Moreover, the rules of procedure of the
NLRC do not apply in this case.
V. Respondent’s Argument:
Respondents are supported by the CA’s ruling which applies the case of Star Angel
Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission.
VI. Instruction Learned:
Article 128 outlines the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Labor Secretary. The
visitorial power grants the Labor Secretary or his duly authorized representatives to
access records of employers and to copy them, investigate. The enforcement powers
include the issuance of compliance orders and writs of execution.
VII. Decision of the Court:
a) NO. Respondents could not appeal the decision since the appeal was not perfected.
The Court affirmed the Labor Secretary’s decision.
b) NO. The NLRC’s Rules of Procedure does not apply since they have a different
jurisdiction
VIII. Ratio:
a) The respondents failed to perfect their appeal. Article 128 of the LCP provides the
scope of the Labor Secretary’s visitorial and enforcement power. The Court ruling in
Guico v. Hon. Quisumbing states:
“Article 128(b) of the Labor Code clearly provides that the appeal bond must be "in
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from." The
records show that petitioner failed to post the required amount of the appeal bond. His
appeal was therefore not perfected.”
The rule is that, to perfect an appeal of the Regional Director’s order involving a
monetary award in cases which concern the visitorial and enforcement powers of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, the appeal must be filed and the cash or surety
bond equivalent to the monetary award must be posted within ten calendar days from
receipt of the order. Failure either to file the appeal or post the bond within the
prescribed period renders the order final and executory. The legislative intent to make
the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is
underscored by the provision that "an appeal by the employer may be perfected only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond."
b) The jurisdiction of the NLRC is separate and distinct from that of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment. In the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, each agency
is governed by its own rules of procedure. In other words, the rules of procedure of
the NLRC are different from (and do not apply in) cases cognizable by the Secretary
of Labor and Employment.
Unlike the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, no provision in the Rules on the
Disposition of Labor Standards Cases governs the filing of a motion for the reduction
of the amount of the bond. However, on matters that are not covered by the Rules on
the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases, the suppletory application of the Rules of
Court is authorized. In other words, the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards
Cases does not sanction the suppletory resort to the rules of procedure of the NLRC.
