Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Urbanes V Sec of Labor
Urbanes V Sec of Labor
htm
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 122791, February 19,
2003
PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR., DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME & STYLE
OF CATALINA SECURITY AGENCY,
PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the June 22,
1995 Order of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Secretary which set aside the
September 16, 1994 Order of the Regional Director,
National Capital Region (NCR).
SO ORDERED.
The SSS moved to reconsider the September 16, 1994
Order of the Regional Director, praying that the
computation be revised.[11]
xxx
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article
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
labor legislation based on the findings
of labor employment and enforcement
officers or industrial safety engineers
made in the course of inspection.
xxx
An order issued by the duly authorized
representative of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment under this article may
be appealed to the latter.
x x x (Emphasis supplied).
Neither the petitioner’s contention nor the SSS’s is
impressed with merit. Lapanday Agricultural Development
Corporation v. Court of Appeals[20] instructs so. In that case,
the security agency filed a complaint before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) against the principal or client
Lapanday for the upward adjustment of the contract rate
in accordance with Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6. Lapanday
argued that it is the National Labor Relations
Commission, not the civil courts, which has jurisdiction
to resolve the issue in the case, it involving the
enforcement of wage adjustment and other benefits due
the agency’s security guards as mandated by several
wage orders. Holding that the RTC has jurisdiction over
the controversy, this Court ruled:
We agree with the respondent that the RTC
has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
present case. It is well settled in law and
jurisprudence that where no employer-
employee relationship exists between
the parties and no issue is involved
which may be resolved by reference to
the Labor Code, other labor statutes or
any collective bargaining agreement, it
is the Regional Trial Court that has
jurisdiction. In its complaint, private
respondent is not seeking any relief
file:///Users/elainabianca/iCloud Drive (Archive)/Desktop/CASES/cases/sc/2003/G.R. No. 122791, February 19, 2003.htm 9/17
2/19/2020 G.R. No. 122791, February 19, 2003.htm
cause of action.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and
Corona, JJ., concur.
[24] Supra.
Batas.org
file:///Users/elainabianca/iCloud Drive (Archive)/Desktop/CASES/cases/sc/2003/G.R. No. 122791, February 19, 2003.htm 16/17
2/19/2020 G.R. No. 122791, February 19, 2003.htm