FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205140. July 10, 2019.]
EDUARDO POBADORA, ET AL., 1petitioner, vs.VISAYAS INVESTIGATION SECURITY SERVICE CORP., PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING & REFINING CORP., THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND MANAGERS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205140 (Eduardo Pobadora, et al. v. Visayas Investigation Security Service Corp., Philippine Associated Smelting & Refining Corp., their respective President, Chairman, Board Members, Officers and Managers). — This is a petition for review on certiorari2 assailing the Resolutions dated September 5, 2012 3 and December 17, 2012 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 06670, which dismissed the appeal on procedural infirmities committed by petitioners. We affirm the CA and also hold, as further ground for dismissal, that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has no jurisdiction over petitioners' complaint because they were still employees of Visayas Investigation Security and Services Corporation (VISSCOR) when the complaint was filed.
Petitioners were employed as security guards of VISSCOR for over nine years and were assigned at the Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR) in Isabel, Leyte. 5 On July 11, 2008, petitioner Eduardo Pobadora (Pobadora), purportedly on behalf of the rest of the petitioners, filed a complaint against VISSCOR and its president, chairman, board members, officers and managers for underpayment of wages, holiday pay, rest day pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, night shift differential, underpayment of 13th month pay, and retirement benefits before the NLRC. He attached pieces of paper in his complaint which contained the names and signatures of the other petitioners. 6
The complaint alleged that petitioners had called the attention of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to the failure of VISSCOR to comply with labor standards prescribed under our laws. Petitioners alleged, however, that the DOLE turned a blind eye on these violations. They cited the inspections made on May 28 to 29, 2008 on the VISSCOR premises, where violations of labor standards law were, in fact, found. Despite this, petitioners alleged, no assurance was given that VISSCOR would comply. 7
VISSCOR, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping. 8
On November 26, 2008, the Labor Arbiter 9 (LA) granted VISSCOR's motion and dismissed the complaint. Petitioners then appealed to the NLRC, which ruled in their favor, ordering the remand of the case to the LA for an appropriate decision. 10
On June 13, 2011, the LA 11 dismissed the case for lack of merit. The LA noted at the outset that PASAR was not included as a respondent in the complaint. Petitioners only included PASAR as a respondent in its manifestation dated July 30, 2009, 12 in violation of Section 2, Rule III of the 2005 Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure. 13 The LA also observed that only Pobadora signed and sworn to the complaint. His co-petitioners did not. 14 They did not submit the Special Power of Attorney, which they executed in favor of Pobadora, until months after the complaint was filed. 15
The LA also ruled that petitioners were unable to prove their entitlement to the claims they demanded. For the retirement pay, none of them have proven to be of the optional retirement age of 60 years old under Article 302 16 of the Labor Code. 17 For the sick and vacation leaves, they did not state whether they availed of the service incentive leave under Article 95 18 of the Labor Code. They did not prove as well that VISSCOR had a policy or practice of granting its employees sick or vacation leave with pay. For the overtime pay and claim for rest day premiums and night shift differentials, petitioners did not prove that they rendered compensable services for such. As for their claims pertaining to the Social Security System (SSS), Pagtutulungan sa Kinabukasan: Ikaw, Bangko Industriya at Gobyerno (Pag-IBIG), and State Insurance Fund, the LA ruled that these are beyond his jurisdiction. 19
The LA further held that the DOLE certifications submitted by VISSCOR, namely: 1) Certification dated December 17, 2009 and Certificate of Clearance dated July 12, 2010, both stating that it has no pending case or unsettled or unsatisfied order on workers' monetary benefits; and 2) Certification dated January 10, 2011 that VISSCOR submitted its employment records for the period of December 2005 to July 2008 to the DOLE, sufficiently proved that whatever claims petitioners may be entitled to were already paid by VISSCOR. 20 In any event, money claims prescribe in three years under Article 306 21 of the Labor Code. Hence, petitioners may only claim for the period beginning on July 11, 2005 and ending on July 11, 2008. 22
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which, in its October 28, 2011 Decision, 23 affirmed the LA. The NLRC held that, in accordance with Article 128 24 of the Labor Code and Sections 2 and 3, 25 Rule II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, 26 the reliefs sought by petitioners were within the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of the DOLE since an employer-employee relationship still existed between petitioners and VISSCOR when the complaint was filed. 27 The NLRC also agreed that it has no jurisdiction over claims concerning the SSS and Pag-IBIG benefits. 28
The NLRC also observed that petitioners did not rebut VISSCOR's contention that they filed another case concerning the same causes of action before the DOLE Ormoc City Field Office. In any event, none of the petitioners have shown that they are 60 years old and entitled to retirement benefits. 29
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. In its September 5, 2012 Resolution, 30 the CA dismissed the petition for suffering from various procedural infirmities, to wit:
1. Petitioners failed to attach the clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed Decision and Resolution, in violation of Section 1, Rule 65 vis-a-vis Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. While petitioners attached a copy of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC, they merely bear the stamp mark "ORIGINAL SIGNED" atop the names of the Commissioners, and only the last pages were marked as certified true copy;
2. Petitioners failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents, which are necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the instant Petition, such as, but not limited to, private respondents' Answer filed before public respondent, if any;
3. The Notarial Certificate in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping did not contain the province or city where the notary public was commissioned, in violation of Section 2 (c), Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and
4. The Affidavit of Service was subscribed and sworn to before a Prosecutor. 31 (Italics in the original; citations omitted.)
The CA likewise denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Thus, petitioners are now before us raising the issue of whether the CA erred in dismissing their petition on technical grounds.
We deny the petition.
Petitioners argue that the CA should have ruled on the merits of their petition rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. They argue that the rules of procedure should not be rigidly applied if substantial justice will be denied. It is true that we have relaxed the application of the rules of procedure in the interest of substantial justice. However, it is equally true that we have only done so for persuasive reasons. 32 Here, aside from reciting a litany of cases wherein we relaxed the application of the rules of procedure, petitioners have failed to justify why they deserve the same treatment.
More importantly, the NLRC has no jurisdiction over petitioners' complaint. Petitioners were still employees of VISSCOR when they filed their complaint. They did not allege that their employment was severed thereafter. In Peoples Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, 33 we held that "[i]f a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is still an existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the DOLE." 34 The LA and the NLRC could not render valid judgment on the matter since they have no jurisdiction over it. 35 Accordingly, it would be futile to resolve this case on its merits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 5, 2012 and December 17, 2012 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 06670 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Eugenio Abuda, Rene Alferez, Vergelio Amith, Jaime Besence, Ernesto Bautista, Roberto Caya, Ermelito Cabiling, Ramel Cabiling, Lucillo Cahulugan, Felix Capin, Remegio Capulac Jr., Beinvinido Casane, Marlon Clemente, Domingo Dagatan, Bonifacio Dalaquit, Alfredo Dalumpines, Reynaldo Delapena, Arnold Enricuso, Garlen Garrido, Orbito Genoso, Joel German, Romeo Gontinas, Eluna Gregorio, Presco Gumba, John Nervas, Petronilo Jumawan, Elmer Limpios, Arasteo Linganay, Cesar Mahinay, Sesinio Margate, Aldwin Merino, Arnel W. Merano, Erwin Mijares, Renito Miralles, Romeo Miralles, Marlon Mopon, Desederio Mula, Ma. Lourdes Novillo, Julius Nuncio, Samuel Oliveros, Rodulfo Omanito, Romeo Omega, Dante Onde, Edgar Onde, Rocky Pableo, Rene Pag-ong, Jimmy Panis, Jose Pepito, Jovito Perez, Erwin Pigao, Joelito Pontalba, Geraldo Puerto, Rose Belly Quinte, David Rivera, Sergio Roque, Teofilo Sencil, Victor Siliban, Ruben Sostino, Renante Tabon, Teresita Talle, Ronie Ubay, Tito Valenzona, Edilberto Yrigan, Herbert Zulita, Joel Bantilan, Mario Elisan, Garlin Garrido, Baltazar Noya, and Antonio Quiza. Rollo, pp. 96-98.
2.Id. at 3-7.
3.Id. at 19-21. Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles.
4.Id. at 24-25. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
5.Id. at 85.
6.Id. at 82.
7.Id. at 85.
8.Id. at 82.
9. Executive Labor Arbiter Jesselito B. Latoja, id.
10. Rollo, p. 83.
11. Labor Arbiter Philip B. Montances.
12. Rollo, p. 75.
13. Sec. 2. Caption and Title. — x x x
The full names of all real parties in interest, whether natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law, shall be stated in the caption of the complaint or petition, as well as in the decisions, resolution or orders of the Labor Arbiter or the Commission.
14. Rollo, p. 75.
15. Id. at 76.
16. Art. 302. [formerly Art. 287] Retirement. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements: Provided, however, That an employee's retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreements shall not be less than those provided therein.
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year.
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.
An underground mining employee upon reaching the age of fifty (50) years or more, but not beyond sixty (60) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age for underground mine workers, who has served at least five (5) years as underground mine worker, may retire and shall be entitled to all the retirement benefits provided for in this Article.
Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than ten (10) employees or workers are exempted from the coverage of this provision.
Violation of this provision is hereby declared unlawful and subject to the penal provisions under Article 288 of this Code.
Nothing in this Article shall deprive any employee of benefits to which he may be entitled under existing laws or company policies or practices.
17. Rollo, p. 77.
18. Art. 95. Right to Service Incentive Leave. — (a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay.
(b) This provision shall not apply to those who are already enjoying the benefit herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least five days and those employed in establishments regularly employing less than ten employees or in establishments exempted from granting this benefit by the Secretary of Labor and Employment after considering the viability or financial condition of such establishment.
(c) The grant of benefit in excess of that provided herein shall not be made a subject of arbitration or any court or administrative action.
19. Rollo, p. 77.
20. Id. at 78.
21. Art. 306. [formerly Art. 291] Money Claims. — All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.
All money claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code shall be filed with the appropriate entities established under this Code within one (1) year from the date of effectivity, and shall be processed or determined in accordance with the implementing rules and regulations of the Code; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
Workmen's compensation claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code and during the period from November 1, 1974 up to December 31, 1974, shall be filed with the appropriate regional offices of the Department of Labor not later than March 31, 1975; otherwise, they shall forever be barred. The claims shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with the law and rules at the time their causes of action accrued.
22. Rollo, p. 79.
23. Id. at 81-90.
24. Art. 128. Visitorial and Enforcement Power. — (a) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives, including labor regulation officers, shall have access to employer's records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(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 this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of 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 a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and Employment may likewise order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. Within twenty-four hours, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether an order for the stoppage of work or suspension of operations shall be lifted or not. In case the violation is attributable to the fault of the employer, he shall pay the employees concerned their salaries or wages during the period of such stoppage of work or suspension of operation.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to obstruct, impede, delay or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives issued pursuant to the authority granted under this Article, and no inferior court or entity shall issue temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order or otherwise assume jurisdiction over any case involving the enforcement orders issued in accordance with this Article.
(e) Any government employee found guilty of violation of, or abuse of authority, under this Article shall, after appropriate administrative investigation, be subject to summary dismissal from the service.
(f) The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, by appropriate regulations, require employers to keep and maintain such employment records as may be necessary in aid of his visitorial and enforcement powers under this Code.
25. Sec. 2. Complaint inspection. — All such complaints shall immediately be forwarded to the Regional Director who shall refer the case to the appropriate unit in the Regional Office for assignment to a Labor Standards and Welfare Officer (LSWO) for field inspection. When the field inspection does not produce the desired results, the Regional Director shall summon the parties for summary investigation to expedite the disposition of the case. The investigation shall be concluded within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the first hearing and a proposed Order disposing of the case shall be submitted to the Regional Director within three (3) calendar days from the conclusion of the investigation.
Sec. 3. Complaints where no employer-employee relationship actually exists. — Where employer-employee relationship no longer exists by reason of the fact that it has already been severed, claims for payment of monetary benefits fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. Accordingly, if on the face of the complaint, it can be ascertained that employer-employee relationship no longer exists, the case whether or not accompanied by an allegation of illegal dismissal, shall immediately be endorsed by the Regional Director to the appropriate Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
26. Rollo, p. 88.
27. Id.
28. Rollo, p. 89.
29. Id.
30. Supra note 3.
31. Rollo, p. 20.
32. See Matis v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 206629, September 14, 2016, 803 SCRA 187, 196-197. Citation omitted.
33. G.R. No. 179652, March 6, 2012, 667 SCRA 538.
34. Id. at 548.
35. See Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corporation, G.R. No. 202877, December 9, 2015, 777 SCRA 258, 267.