SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 175198, September 23, 2015
ALEJANDRO CEPRADO, JR., RONILO SEBIAL, NICANOR OLIVAR, ALVIN VILLEGAS, AND EDGAR MANATO, Petitioners, v. NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC/ROMEO T. NOLASCO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Motions for reconsideration not served on the adverse party do not toll the running of the reglementary period for filing an appeal. Upon lapse of the reglementary period, the judgment sought to be reconsidered becomes immutable.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Court of Appeals Decision2 remanding the case to the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment - Region IV for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals found that the Regional Director resolved respondent Nationwide Security and Allied Services' Motion for Reconsideration without giving the adverse parties, petitioners Alejandro Ceprado, Jr., Ronilo Sebial, Nicanor Olivar, Alvin Villegas, and Edgar Manato (Ceprado, et. al), their opportunity to be heard.3
Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. (Nationwide Security) is a security agency with Romeo T. Nolasco as its president and general manager.4 It provided security guard services to Uniden Philippines (Uniden), whose plant is located in Cabuyao, Laguna.5
On November 16, 2000, the Office of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment - Region IV (Regional Office) conducted a regular inspection of Uniden's Cabuyao plant pursuant to the visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128(b) of the Labor Code.6 In the Notice of Inspection Results,7 the following violations of labor standards laws allegedly committed against the security personnel stationed at Uniden were noted:
Finding that Nationwide Security and Uniden failed to rectify the alleged violations "despite the ample time given to both respondents,"9 Regional Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr. (Regional Director Martinez) declared the labor inspector's findings "final and conclusive"10 in the Order11 dated April 19, 2001. He directed Nationwide Security and Uniden to solidarity pay 40 security personnel the aggregate amount of P1,600,134.40 representing wage differentials and other salary-related benefits, with each security personnel receiving P40,003.36.12 Failure to pay the required amount within 10 calendar days, according to the Regional Director, would result in Nationwide Security and/or Uniden paying double indemnity pursuant to Republic Act No. 8188.13
- Record keeping - employment records such as payrolls and daily time records of guards were kept and maintained at their main office;
- Underpayment of wages and salary[-]related benefits;
- No [Department of Labor and Employment] registration per [Department Order] No. 10;
- No organized safety committee/no safety committee reports;
- No annual medical report;
- No annual work accident/illness exposure data report; and
- Non-submission of list of labor component.8
Ceprado, Jr. et al. then wrote23 the Secretary of Labor and Employment, praying that the Resolution dated May 8, 2002 be set aside. They alleged that upon verification of case records, Nationwide Security and Uniden neither appealed nor filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 19, 2001 Order. Thus, the April 19, 2001 Order already became final and executory and may no longer be disturbed.24
NAMESAMOUNT 1. Ceprado, Alejandro M. 7,250.05 2. Sebial, Ronilo C. 27,480.00 3.Manato,Edgar 7,870.01 4. Olivar, Nicanor 1,598.67 5. Villegas, Alvin 2,019.37 Total Amount - Php 46,218.1022
Endnotes:
* Designated acting member per S.O. No. 2215 dated September 22, 2015.
** Designated acting member per S.O. No. 2170 dated September 10, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 10-31.
2 Id. at 33-43. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85963. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guarina III and concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Lucenito N. Tagle of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
3 Id. at 42, Court of Appeals Decision dated September 12, 2006.
4 Id. at 34.
5 Id. at 33.
6 LABOR CODE, Art. 128 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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 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.
7Rollo, p. 48.
8 Id. at 48. See also the Order dated April 19, 2001 (Id. at 85).
9 Id. at 86, Department of Labor and Employment Order dated April 19, 2001.
10 Id.
11 Id. 85-88.
12 Id. at 86.
13 An Act Increasing the Penalty and Imposing Double Indemnity For Violation of the Prescribed Increases or Adjustments in the Wage Rates, Amending for the Purpose Section Twelve of Republic Act Number Sixty-Seven Hundred Twenty-Seven, Otherwise Known as the Wage Rationalization Act, sec. 1 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 1. Section 12 of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-seven hundred twenty-seven is hereby amended to read to as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"Sec. 12. Any person, corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or entity which refuses or fails to pay any of the prescribed increases or adjustments in the wage rates made in accordance with this Act shall be punished by a fine not less than Twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) nor more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or imprisonment of not less than two (2) years nor more than four (4) years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court: Provided, That any person convicted under this Act shall not be entitled to the benefits provided for under the Probation Law.
"The employer concerned shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to double the unpaid benefits owing to the employees: Provided, That payment of indemnity shall not absolve the employer from the criminal liability imposable under this Act[.]"
14Rollo, p. 93, Department of Labor and Employment Resolution dated May 8, 2002.
15 Id.
16 LABOR CODE, Art. 129 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ART. 129. Recovery of Wages, Simple Money Claims and Other Benefits. - Upon complaint of t any interested party, the regional director of the Department of Labor and Employment or any of the duly authorized hearing officers of the Department is empowered, through summary proceeding and after due notice, to hear and decide any matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or person employed in domestic or household service or househelper under this Code, arising from employer-employee relations: Provided, That such complaint does not include a claim for reinstatement; Provided, further, That the aggregate money claim of each employee or househelper does not exceed Five Thousand pesos (P5,000.00).
17Rollo, p. 94, Department of Labor and Employment Resolution dated May 8, 2002.
18 Id. at 60-61.
19 Id. at 36, Court of Appeals Decision dated September 12, 2006.
20 Id. at 93-97.
21 An Act Further Strengthening the Visitorial and Enforcement Powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Amending for the Purpose Article 128(b) of Presidential Decree Numbered Four Hundred Forty-Two as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, sec. 1 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 1. Paragraph (b) of Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"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 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."
22Rollo, p. 96, Department of Labor and Employment Resolution dated May 8, 2002.
23 Id. at 98-100, Letter dated May 27, 2002.
24 Id. at 98.
25 Id. at 102-105.
26 Id. at 132-133.
27 Id. at 134-137.
28 Id. at 138-148.
29 Id. at 175-176.
30 Id. at 177-183.
31 Id. at 188-189.
32 Id. at 106-131.
33 Id. at 123-124, Petition for Certiorari.
34 Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, Rule IV, sec. 4(b) provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 4. Requisites of appeal.
(b) The appellee may file with the Regional Office his reply or opposition to the appeal within ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. Failure on the part of the appellee to file his reply or opposition within the said period shall be construed as a waiver on his part to file the same.
35Rollo, p. 110, Petition for Certiorari.
36 Id. at 39-40, Court of Appeals Decision dated September 12, 2006.
37 Id. at 40.
38 Id. at 33-43. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guarina III and was concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Lucenito N. Tagle.
39 Id. at 42, Court of Appeals Decision dated September 12, 2006.
40 Id. at 47.
41 Id. at 10-31.
42 Id. at 213-225.
43 Id. at 227-233.
44 Id. at 27, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
45 Id. at 218-219, Comment.
46 Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, Rule I, sec. 7.
47 The Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices became effective on September 16, 1987. Labor inspection procedure is now governed by Sections 3 and 4 of the Basic Labor Inspection Manila, Revised 2003 Edition.
48 Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, Rule II, sec. 19 provides: Section 19. Motion for reconsideration. - The aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of the Order of the Regional Office within seven (7) calendar days from receipt by him of a copy of said Order.
49 Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, Rule II, sec. 12 provides: Section 12. Nature of proceedings. - The proceedings before the Regional Office shall be summary and non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules governing admissibility and sufficiency of evidence obtaining in the courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto. The Regional Office may, however, avail itself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts or the controversy speedily and objectively, including ocular inspection and examination of well informed persons. Substantial evidence, whenever necessary shall be sufficient to support a decision or order.
50 Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, Rule I, sec. 6 provides: Section 6. Suppletory application of Rules of Court. - In the absence of any applicable provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied in a suppletory character.
51 RULES OF COURT, Rule 37, sec. 2 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. - The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.
52See Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals, 391 Phil. 145, 152 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
53 Id.
54 RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, sec. 6 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 6. Proof of service. - No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.
55 RULES OF COURT, Rule 37, sec. 2 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. - ....
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal.
56 RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, sec. 1 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. - Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
57 The Motion for Reconsideration was filed on May 9, 2001. See Order dated March 12, 2003 (rollo, p. 103). Counting seven (7) days from the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration on May 9, 2001, the Resolution dated April 19, 2001 thus became final and executory on May 16, 2001.
58Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 468, 477 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
59 Id. at 481.
60Gonzales v. Gonzales, 518 Phil. 223, 235 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division], citing Enriquez v. Court of Appeals, 444 Phil. 419,428 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
61 Id.
62 Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices, Rule I, sec. 5 provides: Section 5. Construction. - In order to carry out the objectives of the Constitution and the Labor Code and to aid the parties in arriving at a fair, just, expeditious and economical settlement of labor disputes, these Rules shall be liberally construed,
63Gonzaga v. The Secretary of Labor, 254 Phil. 528, 545 (1989) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].
64 LABOR CODE, Art. 5 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ARTICLE 5. Rules and regulations. — The Department of Labor and other government agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of general circulation.
65Philippine Veterans Bank v. Estrelta, 453 Phil. 45, 51 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
66 Id.