SUBJECT:

TOPIC:

Date Made:

Digest Maker:

LABOR

Enforcement and
Sanctions

24/08/2016

Francis

CASE NAME: Cireneo Bowling Plaza Inc v Sensing

PONENTE: J. Austria-Martinez

Case Date: 14/01/2005

Case Summary:
Brief, recit-ready summary of the case. Paragraph form, narrative. Keep it to 10
sentences, max.
Rule of Law:
Art. 128. Visitorial and enforcement power.
(a) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives, including labor
regulation officers, shall have access to employers 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 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 finding
of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by
documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection.

Detailed Facts:

Eligio Paolo Jr. employee of ptr, filed complaint w/ DOLE Dagupan District Office for
investigation on ptr for various violations: underpayment of wages, 13th month pay,
non-pay of rest day, OT pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay.
Labor and Employment Officer Dingle investigated and found ptr has 13 employees
and committed ff violations: underpayment of minimum wage, 13th month pay,
holiday premiums, overtime premiums, and non-payment of rest day inspection
report acknowledged and signed by ptrs officer-in-charge, Boquiren.
Ptr missed both hearings w/ Boquiren saying Cirineo(President/GM) was confined in
hospital.
DOLE issued order, ordering ptr to pay total of P377 500.58 representing their
underpaid wages, etc. w/in 10 days of receipt otherwise, Writ of Execution will be
served received by ptr May 17, 1996. No MR/Appeal filed
Ptr representative, Zapata, 10 days later, presented to DOLE quitclaims, waivers,
releases to the employees however these employees wrote denying ever receiving
BLOCK D 2019 1

any amount.
Cirineo and a certain Octaviano, owner of Esperanza Seafoods Kitchenette, on June
19, 1996, wrote a letter to DOLE requesting case be endorsed to NLRC: resolution
of the case required evidentiary matters not disclosed or verified in the normal
course of inspection. Also submitted documents proving ptr and Esperanza
Seafoods are 2 separate entities and that some of the employees mentioned are
actually employees of the latter and not ptrs.
DOLE denied request. Said cannot at this juncture raise issue of separate
personalities. Respo had always intended to settle respective claims of 13
employees = acknowledged being their employer. Write of Execution then
served Motion to Quash denied. 1st appeal denied, filed out of time but on MR,
appeal granted Appeal dismissed by DOLE Undersec Espanol affirming the DOLE
order. MR denied, certiorari + TRO w/ CA.
CA dismissed petition: failure of petitioner to (1) attach a copy of the letter
complaint filed by petitioners employees and the Order dated February 7, 1997 of
the DOLE Regional Director and (2) state the material date when the assailed
Orders/Resolutions were received pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 65 and Section 3 of
Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. MR denied so now going to SC thru
certiorari (special appeal hehehe)

Issue:
W/N PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE INSTANT PETITION AND
OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO MERE
TECHNICALITIES.
*Also questioned whether DOLE Regional Director has jurisdiction (I THINK ITO YUNG
RELEVANT)
Holding:
-

No GAOD by CA. CA dismissed for failure to attach certain docs + state material
date. in the MR, tho certain docs attached, still no material date without
material date, CA cant determine if filed within reglementary period of 60
days, failure to comply with requirements, sufficient to dismiss.
o Mandatory requirements, not mere technicality
o Tho there are exceptions, party should at least explain failure
o PTR: Cirineo was abroad, only found out about denial of MR on return,
couldnt communicate with him futile because they could just check files at
DOLE office
Ptrs also never disputed the findings of inspector about 13 employees nor raise the
issue of separate personalities during investigation/hearings
(RELEVANT ONE I THINK) Regional Director has jurisdiction: old rule limiting the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representatives to money claims not exceeding P5,000.00 has been repealed by
the passage of R.A. No. 7730, Section 1
o Art. 128. Visitorial and Enforcement Power.
(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
BLOCK D 2019 2

representative 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 finding of the labor employment and enforcement officer 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. Petitioner is
incorrect in stating R.A. 7730 did not specifically amend Art. 217 of
the Labor Code. In fact, it is plainly stated that the amendment
applies notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 to
the contrary.
-

as the duly authorized representative of respondent Secretary of Labor, and in the

lawful exercise of the Secretarys visitorial and enforcement powers under Article
128 of the Labor Code, respondent Regional Director had jurisdiction to issue his
impugned Order.

Ruling:
DISMISSED
Other Opinions:
J. Blank Blank | Dissent
J. Blank Blank | Concurring

BLOCK D 2019 3