Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15


Etom v Aroma Lodging House


This is a case for illegal dismissal and Article 4, Labor Code of the Philippines.
money claims All doubts in the implementation xxx of
the provisions of this code xxx shall be
Petitioner's version: resolved in favor of labor.
Respondent hired him as a "roomboy" in
1997 with a monthly salary of P2500 per
month. He was assigned to work from CASE HISTORY:
Monday to Saturday, including holidays.
His tasks included cleaning the lodging
house and washing towels and Labor Arbited: (L)
Sometime in 2008, he was barred by the
respondent from reporting to work CA: (M)
without affording him the opportunity to
SC: (L)
be informed of the cause of his
dismissal and the opportunity to be RULING:

Respondent's version:
The petitioner is underpaid. Under the
Petitioner was hired in 2000 law, all doubts in the implementation of
the Labor Code must be resolved in
The petitioner was paid a salary which
favor of labor. In the case at bar, the
was above the minimun wage, including
respondent was NOT able to present
benefits granted by law. But despite the
substantial evidence that it paid the
benevolence showed to him, he still
required minimum wage, 13th month
caused trouble in the workplace through
pay and holiday pay in favor of the
acts of theft, a charge of rape and three
petitioner. The burden of proof rests with
counts of attempted killings, and the
the employer to prove such payment /
petitioner refused the "memo".
compliance. Since the respondent was
NOT able to do so, then the petitioner
shall benefit with the presumption that
ISSUE: he is, indeed, underpaid.
Whether or not the petitioner is
SLL International Cables vs. NLRC

Money Claims Cases Page 1


Petitioners further alleged that the food

allowance of P63.00 per day as well as
FACTS: private respondents allowance for
This is a case for illegal dismissal and lodging house, transportation, electricity,
money claims. water and snacks allowance should be
added to their basic pay.
Private respondents Lopez, Zuniga and
Canete were employed were hired by With these, petitioners claimed that
Petitioner as apprentice or trainee private respondents received higher
cable/lineman and were paid the full wage rate than that prescribed in Rizal
minimum wage and other benefits; they and Manila.
did not report to work regularly, since
they are trainees, but came in
substitutes for other regular workers. ISSUE:
After their training, they were engaged
as Project Employees, upon which they (1) Whether the respondents are project
have to re-apply after every completion, employees?
as alleged by the petitioner. (2) Whether the respondents are entitled
Due to economic problems, petitioner to the payment of minimum wage?
was constrained to cut down the (3) Whether the respondents'
overtime work of its workers. Thus, allowances given by the petitioner
when private respondents requested to should be deducted to the wages given
work overtime, Lagon refused. to the former?
Private respondents went home to Cebu
and filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of wages, LAW:
holiday pay, 13th month pay and service
(1) Department of Labor and
incentive leave pay as well as damages
Employment (DOLE) Department Order
and attorney’s fees.
No. 19: a project completion must be
Petitioners admitted private filed with the nearest Public
respondents’ employment but claimed Employment Office every time the
that the latter were only project employment of Project Employees are
employees for their services were terminated.
merely engaged for a specific project or
(2) Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules to
undertaking, hence they were not
Implement the Labor Code: specifically
entitled to the payment of Minimum
enumerates those who are not covered
by the payment of minimum wage,

Money Claims Cases Page 2


which does not include Project time project employees employment

Employees in its enumeration; and Art. were terminated.
98, Labor Code: This Title shall not
apply to farm tenancy or leasehold, In the case at bar, the petitioner did not
domestic service and persons working comply with this requirement; hence, the
in their respective homes in needle work presumption is that the respondents
or in any cottage industry duly were not project employees but regular
registered in accordance with law. employees.

(3) Section 1 of DOLE Memorandum (2) Yes. Under the law, as a general
Circular No. 2: an employer may provide rule, all employees are entitled to the
subsidized meals and snacks to his payment of minimum wage; while it is
employees provided that the subsidy true that exceptions exists, project
shall not be less that 30% of the fair and employees are not listed in those
reasonable value of such facilities. In exceptions. Hence, Project Employees
such cases, the employer may deduct are entitled to the payment of minimum
from the wages of the employees not wage.
more than 70% of the value of the meals (3) No. Under the law, before the value
and snacks enjoyed by the latter, of facilities can be deducted from the
provided that such deduction is with the employees’ wages, the following
written authorization of the employees requisites must all be attendant: (1)
concerned. proof must be shown that such facilities
are customarily furnished by the trade;
(2) the provision of deductible facilities
CASE HISTORY: must be voluntarily accepted in writing
by the employee; and (3) facilities must
Labor Arbiter: (L) be charged at reasonable value. In the
NLRC: (L) case at bar, the items provided were
given "freely" (emphasis supplied) by
CA: (L) SLL for the purpose of maintaining the
efficiency and health of its workers while
SC: (L)
they were working at their respective


(1) No. Under the law, the failure to JP Marketing Promotions vs CA

comply with the compulsory requirement
to submit a report of termination to the
nearest Public Employment Office every FACTS:

Money Claims Cases Page 3


(1) Whether the private respondents

were illegally dismissed?
This is a case for money claims filed by
the private respondents Noel Gonzales, (2) Whether the private respondents are
Ramon Abesa III and Faustino Aninipot. entitled to separation pay, 13th month
pay, and service incentive leave pay?
The Petitioner is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of recruitment
and placement of workers.
The private respondents were employed
by petitioner as merchandisers and as (1) Art. 286 of the Labor Code allows
attendants to the display of California the bona fide suspension of the
Marketing Corporation (CMC), one of operation of a business or undertaking
petitioners clients. for a period not exceeding six (6)
months, wherein an
JPL notified private respondents that employee/employees are placed on the
CMC would stop its direct so-called floating status. When that
merchandising activity and they were floating status of an employee lasts for
advised to wait for further notice as they more than six months, he may be
would be transferred to other clients considered to have been illegally
within 6 months. dismissed from the service. Thus, he is
entitled to the corresponding benefits for
Abesa and Gonzales applied with and his separation, and this would apply to
were employed by the store where they suspension either of the entire business
were assigned to, particularly, by CMC. or of a specific component thereof.
Abesa and Gonzales filed before the (2)
NLRC complaints for illegal dismissal,
praying for separation pay, 13th month Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code:
pay, service incentive leave pay and separation pay is authorized only in
payment for moral damages. Aninipot cases of dismissals due to any of these
filed a similar case thereafter. The reasons:
aforementioned complaints were filed
before the expiration of the 6- month (a) installation of labor saving devices;
period. (b) redundancy;
The complaints were consolidated and (c) retrenchment;
submitted for resolution.
(d) cessation of the employer's
business; and

Money Claims Cases Page 4


(e) when the employee is suffering from establishments even before the
a disease and his continued expiration of the six (6)-month period
employment is prohibited by law or is provided by law. Also, there was no
prejudicial to his health and to the health dismissal to speak of. Private
of his co-employees. respondents were simply not dismissed
at all. What they received from JPL was
However, separation pay shall be not a notice of termination of
allowed as a measure of social justice in employment, but a memo informing
those cases where the employee is them of the termination of CMCs
validly dismissed for causes other than contract with JPL. More importantly,
serious misconduct or those reflecting they were advised that they were to be
on his moral character, but only when reassigned. At that time, there was no
he was illegally dismissed. severance of employment to speak of.
Thus, they were not dismissed at all.

Art. 95 of the Labor Code, is a yearly (2) The Private Respondents are not
leave benefit of five (5) days with pay, entitled to the payment of the
enjoyed by an employee who has Separation pay, but are entitled to the
rendered at least one year of service. payment of the 13th month pay and
Service incentive Leave.

Under the law, there is an enumeration

CASE HISTORY: of the cases wherein the awarding of
Separation Pay is just and proper, and a
Labor Arbiter: (M)
unilateral act of severing the employer-
NLRC: (L) employee relationship committed by the
employee is not one of them. In the
CA: (L) case at bar, JPL did not terminate their
employment; the Private Respondents
SC: (M)
themselves severed their relations with
JPL. Thus, they are not entitled to
separation pay.

(1) No.
Autobus Transport System vs
Under the law, a period of 6 months is Bautista
allowed for the temporary suspension of
the operation of the business.

In the case at bar, private respondents FACTS:

sought employment from other

Money Claims Cases Page 5


This is a complaint for illegal dismissal

and money claims.
Respondent Antonio Bautista has been
employed by petitioner Auto Bus Whether the petitioner is entitled to the
TransportSystems, Inc., since May payment of 13th Month pay and Service
1995, as driver conductor with travel Incentive Leave.
routes Manila Tuguegarao via Baguio,
Baguio-Tuguegarao via Manila and
Manila-Tabuk via Baguio. Respondent LAW:
was paid on commission basis, 7% of
(1) Article 82, Labor Code: field
the total gross income per travel, on a
personnel shall refer to non-agricultural
twice a month basis.
employees who regularly perform their
There are inspectors assigned by the duties away from the principal place of
petitioner at strategic places who board business or branch office of the
the bus and inspect the passengers, the employer and whose actual hours of
punched tickets, and the conductors work in the field cannot be determined
reports. with reasonable certainty.

Respondent met an accident when he

made a sudden stop on a sharp curve
while driving Autobus #144. The
respondent alleged that the accident Labor Arbiter: (L)
happened due to the command given to
him to return to Isabela, and because he NLRC: (L)
was driving for almost 24 hours.
CA: (L)
The respondent alleged that he was not
SC: (L)
allowed to work until he fully paid 30%
of the amount of the cost of repair of the
damage caused to the buses (the bus
he was driving and the bus which RULING:
collided to it). After a month, the Yes, the respondent is entitled to the
management sent a letter of termination payment of 13th Month pay and Service
to the respondent. Incentive Leave.
Hence, a complaint for illegal dismissal Under the law, field personnel are non-
with money claims for nonpayment of agricultural employees who regularly
13th month pay and service incentive perform their duties away from the
leave, one month after the dismissal. principal place of business or branch

Money Claims Cases Page 6


office of the employer and whose actual Respondent noticed that some of the
hours of work in the field cannot be call center agents under him would often
determined with reasonable certainty. make excuses to leave their work
stations. Their most common excuse
In the case at bar, in each and every was that they would visit the companys
depot, there is always the Dispatcher medical clinic. To verify that they were
whose function is precisely to see to it not using the clinic as an alibi to cut their
that the bus and its crew leave the work hours, respondent sent an e-mail
premises at specific times and arrive at to the clinics personnel requesting for
the estimated proper time. Bautista was the details of the agents alleged medical
therefore under constant supervision consultation. His request was denied on
while in the performance of this work. the ground that medical records of
Hence, he is NOT a field personnel, and employees are highly confidential and
is entitled to 13th Month Pay and can only be disclosed in cases involving
Service Incentive Leave. health issues, and not to be used to
build any disciplinary case against them.
Note: The complaint for illegal dismissal
was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, Respondent received a notice requiring
whose decision was affirmed by the him to explain why he should not be
higher forums. penalized for: (1) violating Green Dot
Companys Policy and Procedure for
Direct Deposit Bank Info Request when
he accessed a customers online
Clientlogic Philippines, Inc. vs.
account and then gave the latters
routing and reference numbers for direct
deposit; and (2) gravely abusing his
discretion when he requested for the
FACTS: medical records of his team members.
This is a case for illegal dismissal and Respondent did not deny allegations,
money claims. however, justified his actuations by
explaining that the customer begged
Respondent was employed by petitioner
him to access the account because she
as a call center agent. After six (6)
did not have a computer or an internet
months, he was promoted to the Mentor
access; and that he merely requested
position, and thereafter to the Coach
for a patient tracker, not medical
position. A Coach is a team supervisor
who is in charge of dealing with
customer complaints which cannot be A poster showing SITEL's organizational
resolved by call center agents. chart was posted on the companys
bulletin board, but respondents name
Money Claims Cases Page 7

and picture were conspicuously missing, Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
and the name and photo of another Book III, Rule I, Sec. 2(c): Managerial
employee appeared in the position Employees are those:
which respondent was supposedly
occupying. 1) The primary duty consists of the
performance of work directly related to
On February 12, 2007, he received a management of policies of their
Notice of Termination. employer;

2) Customarily and regularly exercise

discretion and independent judgment;
These events prompted him to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal; non- 3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a
payment of overtime pay, rest day pay, proprietor or a managerial employee
holiday pay, service incentive leave pay; whose primary duty consists of
full backwages; damages; and attorneys management of the establishment in
fees before the Labor Arbiter which he is employed or subdivision
thereof; or (ii) execute under general
supervision work along specialized or
ISSUE: technical lines requiring special training,
experience, or knowledge; or (iii)
(1) Whether the respondent was illegally execute, under general supervision,
dismissed; and special assignment and tasks; and

(2) Whether the respondent is entitled to 4) Who do not devote more than 20
the money claims that he prays for. percent of their hours worked in a
workweek to activities which are not
directly and closely related to the
LAW: performance of the work described in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above.
(2) Article 82, Labor Code: the
provisions of the Labor Code on working
conditions and rest periods shall not
apply to managerial employees.
Generally, managerial employees are Labor Arbiter: (L)
not entitled to overtime pay for services
rendered in excess of eight hours a day. NLRC: (M)

CA: (L)

SC: (L)

Money Claims Cases Page 8


RULING: workweek to activities which are not

directly and closely related to the
(1) performance of the work.
No. The respondent failed to make an However, in the case at bar, the
appeal on CAs Decision finding him not respondent is NOT a managerial
illegally dismissed rendered the decision employee. The respondent failed to
regarding the illegal dismissal final and pass the test of being a managerial
executory. employee. Since the respondent is not a
(2) managerial employee, he is entitled to
such benefits.
Yes. Under the law, managerial
employees are not entitled to such
benefits. Managerial employees are
those: ROBERTO GONZALES, petitioner,
1) The primary duty consists of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
performance of work directly related to COMMISSION, PEPSI COLA
management of policies of their
INC., respondents.
2) Customarily and regularly exercise
discretion and independent judgment; Gonzales was both an employee, being
3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a route manager, and a
proprietor or a managerial employee concessionaire/dealer of herein
whose primary duty consists of respondent PCPPI. Being a dealer of
management of the establishment in Pepsi cola he is entitled to “concession”
which he is employed or subdivision which is the cash equivalent of the value
thereof; or of empty bottles and its contents given
to a dealer who met the monthly quota
(ii) execute under general required by PCPPI.
supervision work along specialized or
technical lines requiring special training, As dealer he purchased PCPPI products
experience, or knowledge; or on credit amounting to 116,182 php to
which he issued a post- dated checks.
(iii) execute, under general Three days before the issued checks is
supervision, special assignment and going to be due and demandable he
tasks; and offered new post dated checks to cover
his credit and ordered salesman
4) Who do not devote more than 20
Alhambra, his subordinate, to issue an
percent of their hours worked in a

Money Claims Cases Page 9


official receipt which they issue only to RULING:

customers paying in cash.
Petition denied (Management)
Upon notice of discrepancy as to official
receipt and cash on hand of PCPPI 1)YES. First, petitioner gave himself
investigation ensued. On October 6 , a credit extension without proper
1993 Gonzales was served a notice of authorization. Second, petitioner, as
termination for engaging in fictitious route manager prevailed upon
transaction, fake invoicing , and breach salesman Alhambra, his subordinate,
of trust and confidence. over whom he exercises moral and
professional ascendancy to carry out
Aggrieved Gonzales then filed a case his machination. Third, upon the
for illegal dismissal, back wages and discovery by the settlement clerk of
attorneys fees. the fraudulent official receipt,
petitioner issued on December 31,
CASE HISTORY: 1992 another post-dated check dated
October 15, 1996, Labor Arbiter – January 15, 1993 together with a
(Labor) post-dated check receipt (PDCR)
signed by petitioner himself although
NLRC – (Management) Reversed he was not authorized to do so.
Third, upon the discovery by the
Hence this petition.
settlement clerk of the fraudulent
APPLICABLE LAW: official receipt, petitioner issued on
December 31, 1992 another post-
Under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, dated check dated January 15, 1993
an employer can terminate the together with a post-dated check
employment of the employee concerned receipt (PDCR) signed by petitioner
for "fraud or willful breach by an himself although he was not
employee of the trust reposed in him by authorized to do so.
his employer or duly authorized
representative." The loss of trust and 2) YES. While the notice does not
confidence must be based on the willful show on its face that the petitioner
breach of the trust reposed in the acknowledged receipt thereof, it is
employee by his employer.” undisputed that petitioner freely,
voluntarily and actively participated in
ISSUE: the administrative investigation on
the charges filed against him, as
1) Whether Gonzales is legally
evidenced by his signature affixed on
each page of the minutes of the
2) Whether Gonzales’ dismissal is
hearings conducted on April 16, 1993
procedurally correct?
and June 25, 1993.
Money Claims Cases Page 10

PAMELA FLORENTINA P. April 20, 2009, CA – (Management)

JUMUAD, Petitioner, Reversed
HI-FLYER FOOD, INC. and/or JESUS Hence this petition.
R. MONTEMAYOR, Respondents.
Art. 282. Termination by Employer
Hi-flyer a corporation licensed to
operate KFC restaurant in the (c) Fraud or willful breach
Philippines is the employer of Jumuad by the employee of the trust
ranked area manager of region 1 of reposed in him by his employer
whole Visayas and Mindanao, herein or duly authorized representative;
petitioner. Under the employment
Jumuad was entitled to a car loan ISSUE:
wherein she will pay 40% of the car’s
price and the remaining 60% will be 1) Whether Jumuad was legally
deducted to his salary. dismissed.
2) Whether the award for return the
Upon series of audits, Hi- flyer noticed 40 % of the car’s price is proper?
that the branches under the supervision
of Jumuad violates sanitary RULING:
requirements and involves a scheme for
covering of cash shortages. Petition denied (Management)

Hi-flyer wanting to make Jumuad 1)Yes. As correctly noted by the

accountable sent notice of charges to appellate court, Jumuad executed
Jumuad on Septmeber 5, 2005. After management policies and had the
due investigation Hi-flyer sent the notice power to discipline the
of dismissal to Jumuas on October employees of KFC branches in her
17,2005. area. On the principle of respondeat
superior or command responsibility
Aggrieved, Jumuad filed a case for alone, Jumuad may be held liable for
illegal dismissal. negligence in the performance of her
managerial duties. Based on
CASE HISTORY: established facts, the mere existence
of the grounds for the loss of trust
Labor Arbiter – (Labor)and ordered the and confidence justifies petitioner’s
return of 40% of the price of the car dismissal. Pursuant to the Court’s
loaned by Jumuad which the latter had ruling in Lima Land, Inc. v.
already paid. Cuevas, as long as there is some
basis for such loss of confidence,
NLRC – (Labor) Affirmed in toto LA’s such as when the employer has
decision reasonable ground to believe that
the employee concerned is

Money Claims Cases Page 11


responsible for the purported 31 March 1989 Labor Arbiter –

misconduct, and the nature of his Management
participation therein renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence NLRC – (Labor) reversed
demanded of his position, a
managerial employee may be Hence this petition.
2) No. The rights and obligations of
the parties to a car loan agreement 1) PD 4429 which prohibits
is not a proper issue in a labor diminution of benefits.
dispute but in a civil one. It involves 2) PD 851, the 13th month pay law
the relationship of debtor and 3) Wage Order no. 6 which increase
creditor rather than employee- the minimum wage.
employer relations.43 Jurisdiction, 4) Article 94 of Labor Code which
therefore, lies with the regular courts provides for holiday pay.
in a separate civil action.

Whether or not private respondents

PRODUCERS BANK OF THE were intitled to all their claims.
PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
COMMISSION and PRODUCERS Petition denied (Management)
ASSOCIATION,1respondents. 1) Bonuses- A "bonus" is a gratuity
or act of liberality of the giver
FACTS: which the recipient has no right to
demand as a matter of right.
Prior to this case the petitioner bank had Furthermore, the bank was
already experienced some losses which operating in losses that’s why it
put them under conservation of was put under conservatorship,
Monetary Board. Herein private therefore, it can justify the
respondents filed this case for alleged diminution of bonuses because
violation of non diminution of benefits doing the contrary will result
when the petitioner did not gave the instead to closure of the bank.
proper amount of bonuses as it 2) 13th month pay – Under the law
religiously been giving for 13 years, 13th employers already paying their
month pay, difference between the new employees 13th month pay or its
wage order and the basic pay, and equivalent are not covered by law
holiday pay and consequently prayed for on 13th month pay. Equivalent
damages. mentioned includes mid-year
bonus and Christmas bonus
CASE HISTORY: which the petitioner has been

Money Claims Cases Page 12


religiously paying already hence the opinion of DOLE for their right to
they are justified in diminishing service awards and anniversary and
the 13th month pay. performance bonus they filed this case
3) Wage differentials - there is to claim the same.
nothing in the collective
bargaining agreement that would CASE HISTORY:
prevent the petitioner from
crediting the first salary and October 8, 1992 Labor Arbiter – (Labor)
allowance increases against the granted the prayer
increases prescribed by the wage
order no. 6. Thus, petitioner is not NLRC – (Management) reversed
liable for wage differentials.
4) Holiday pay – At was proven that Hence this petition.
the use of 303 days as divisor
was not used in computing for APPLICABLE LAW:
payment of holiday pay rather the
same was only used for Article 6 and 22 of Civil Code which
computation of overtime pay provides for validity of waiver of rights
thus, the petitioner did not and unjust enrichment.
diminish the holiday pay of the
private respondent as it was ISSUE:
being paid by using 314 days in
computing the same. 1) Whether or not petitioners is
5) Damages – Consequently there entitled to their claims given that
is no ground to grant the same. they had already signed a
release and quitclaim after
accepting the special redundancy
LOURDES G. MARCOS, ALEJANDRO 2) Whether they are entitled to their
AND VILMA L. CRUZ, petitioners,
COMMISSION and INSULAR LIFE Petition granted (Labor)
ASSURANCE CO., LTD., respondents.
1) YES. Under prevailing
FACTS: jurisprudence, the fact that an
employee has signed a
Petitioners worked for respondent satisfaction receipt for his claims
company until they were terminated does not necessarily result in the
sometime in 1990 due to redundancy of waiver thereof. A deed of release
position. They were awarded special or quitclaim cannot bar an
redundancy benefit and subsequently employee from demanding
signed a document for release and benefits to which he is legally
quitclaim. After the petitioners asked for entitled. The reason is that

Money Claims Cases Page 13


employer and the employee CIRINEO BOWLING PLAZA, INC.,

obviously do not stand on the vs.
same footing. GERRY SENSING
2) Since each of the complainants
have rendered services to FACTS:
respondent in multiple(s) of five
years prior to their separation Paolo an employee of herein petitioner
from employment which the Corporation, Cireneo, filed a letter
collective bargaining agreement complaint before the DOLE requesting
requires, respondent should be an inspection/investigation for alleged
paid their service awards for violation of Labor Code particularly on
1990. With regard to anniversary giving the proper wages and benefits.
and performance bonus , equity DOLE Regional Director found Cireneo
demands that the performance guilty and ordered them to pay the
and anniversary bonuses should claims which exceeds P 5000.
be prorated to the number of
months that petitioners actually CASE HISTORY:
served respondent company in
the year 1990. On April 22, 1996 DOLE Regional
Director – Labor

March 30, 1999 Secretary of DOLE –

(Labor) Affirmed

August 31, 2000 CA – (Labor)

dismissed petition for failure to attach
copy of complaint and failure to state the
material date of receipt of the assailed
order of Regional Director.

Hence this petition.


Article 128 of Labor Code and

RA 7730 it amendatory law


1) Whether the case should be

dismissed solely on mere
2) Whether DOLE Regional Director
has the authority to issue orders

Money Claims Cases Page 14


for payment of money claims orders to give effect to the labor

above P 5000? standards provisions of this Code
and other labor legislation based
RULING: on the findings of labor
employment and enforcement
Petition dismissed (Labor) officers or industrial safety
engineers made in the course of
1) Yes. The material dates not inspection, sans any restriction
specified in the petition before the with respect to the jurisdictional
Court of Appeals is not a mere amount of P5,000.00 provided
technicality because it is under Article 129 and Article 217
determinative whether the of the Code.
petition was filed within the
reglementary period of sixty days.
2) Yes. The contention of the
petitioner corporation that the
Regional Director has no
jurisdiction to issue assailed
orders because the same is a
money claim above P 5000 is

While it is true that under Articles

129 and 217 of the Labor Code,
the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
to hear and decide cases where
the aggregate money claims of
each employee
exceeds P5,000.00, said
provisions of law do not
contemplate nor cover the
visitorial and enforcement powers
of the Secretary of Labor or his
duly authorized representatives.

Pursuant to Section 1 of Republic

Act 7730 [Approved on June 2,
1994] which amended Article 128
(b) of the Labor Code, the
Secretary of Labor and
Employment or his duly
authorized representative, in the
exercise of their visitorial and
enforcement powers, are now
authorized to issue compliance

Money Claims Cases Page 15