14. Urbanes v Sec of Labor

7/23/2019 14. Urbanes v Sec of Labor

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/14-urbanes-v-sec-of-labor 1/9

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 122791 February 19, 2003

PLACIO O. UR!ANES, "R., #o$%& bu'$%e'' u%#er ()e %a*e + '(ye o-

CATALINA SECURIT AGENC, petitioner,

vs.

T/E /ONORA!LE SECRETAR OF LA!OR AN EMPLOMENT a%#

SOCIAL SECURIT SSTEM, respondents.

D ! I S I O N

CARPIOMORALES, J.:

"efore this !ourt is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule #$ of the Revised

Rules of !ourt assailin% the &une '', ())$ Order of the Depart*ent of +abor

and *plo*ent -DO+ Secretar /hich set aside the Septe*ber (#, ())0

Order of the Re%ional Director, National !apital Re%ion -N!R.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follo/s1

Petitioner Placido O. 2rbanes, &r., doin% business under the na*e and stle

of !atalina Securit 3%enc, entered into an a%ree*ent( to provide securit

services to respondent Social Securit Sste* -SSS.

Durin% the effectivit of the a%ree*ent, petitioner, b letter of Ma (#,

())0,' re4uested the SSS for the up/ard ad5ust*ent of their contract rate in

vie/ of 6a%e Order No. N!R789 /hich /as issued b the Re%ional Tripartite

6a%es and Productivit "oard7N!R pursuant to Republic 3ct #:': other/ise

;no/n as the 6a%e Rationali<ation 3ct, the pertinent provision of /hich /a%e

order reads1

Section ). I% ()e a'e o- o%(ra(' for construction pro5ects and -or

'eur$(y, 5anitorial and si*ilar services, ()e re'r$be# a*ou%( 'e( -or()

)ere$% -or oere# 4or5er' ')a be bor%e by ()e r$%$a' or ()e

$e%(' of the construction=service contractors a%# ()e o%(ra( ')a be

#ee*e# a*e%#e# aor#$%&y. I% ()e ee%(, )o4eer, ()a( ()e r$%$a

or $e%( -a$e# (o ay ()e re'r$be# $%rea'e, ()e o%'(ru($o%6'er$e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_122791_2003.html#fnt1







o%(ra(or' ')a be o$%(y a%# 'eeray $abe 4$() ()e r$%$a or

$e%(. -*phasis and underscorin% supplied.

3s his Ma (#, ())0 letter to the SSS re*ained unheeded, petitioner sent

another letter ,9 dated &une :, ())0, reiteratin% the re4uest, /hich /as

follo/ed b still another letter,0 dated &une >, ())0.

On &une '0, ())0, petitioner pulled out his a%enc?s services fro* the

pre*ises of the SSS and another securit a%enc, &a%uar, too; over .$

On &une '), ())0, petitioner filed a co*plaint# /ith the DO+7N!R a%ainst

the SSS see;in% the i*ple*entation of 6a%e Order No. N!R789.

In its position paper ,: the SSS praed for the dis*issal of the co*plaint on

the %round that petitioner is not the real part in interest and has no le%al

capacit to file the sa*e. In an event, it ar%ued that if it had an obli%ation, it

/as to the securit %uards.

On the other hand, petitioner in his position paper ,> citin% Eagle Security

Agency, Inc. v. NLRC ,) contended that the securit %uards assi%ned to the

SSS do not have an le%al basis to file a co*plaint a%ainst it for lac; of

contractual privit.

@indin% for petitioner, the Re%ional Director of the DO+7N!R issued an

Order (8 of Septe*ber (#, ())0, the dispositive portion of /hich reads,

4uoted verbatim1

6HR@OR, pre*ises considered, the respondent Social Securit Sste*

-SSS is hereb Ordered to pa !o*plainant the total su* of ON MI++ION

SIA H2NDRD THO2S3ND IBHT H2NDRD @I@TC IBHT 3ND 0#=(88-P (,#88,>$>.0# representin% the /a%e differentials under 6a%e Order No.

N!R789 of the ON H2NDRD SIATC IBHT -(#> Securit Buards of

!atalina Securit 3%enc coverin% the period fro* Dece*ber (#, ())9 to

&une '0, ())0, inclusive /ithin ten -(8 das fro* receipt hereof, other/ise a

/rit of eecution shall be issued to enforce this Order.

The clai*s for the pa*ent of interest and 3ttorne?s fees are hereb

ordered dis*issed for /ant of 5urisdiction.

SO ORDRD.

The SSS *oved to reconsider the Septe*ber (#, ())0 Order of the Re%ional

Director, prain% that the co*putation be revised. ((

" Order (' of Dece*ber ), ())0, the Re%ional Director *odified his

Septe*ber (#, ())0 Order b reducin% the a*ount paable b the SSS to

petitioner. The dispositive portion of the Re%ional Director?s Order of

Dece*ber ), ())0 reads1































6HR@OR, pre*ises considered, the Order of this Office dated

Septe*ber (#, ())0 is hereb *odified. Respondent Social Securit Sste*

is hereb ordered to pa co*plainant the a*ount of ON MI++ION T6O

H2NDRD THIRTC SVN THO2S3ND SVN H2NDRD @ORTC

PSOS -P (,'9:,:08.88 representin% the /a%e differentials under 6a%e

Order No. N!R789 of the one hundred sit7ei%ht -(#> securit %uards of

!atalina Securit 3%enc coverin% the period fro* Dece*ber (#, ())9 to&une '8, ())0, inclusive, /ithin ten -(8 das fro* receipt of this Order,

other/ise, eecution shall issue.

The SSS appealed(9 to the Secretar of +abor upon the follo/in% assi%ned

errors, 4uoted verbatim1

3. TH RBION3+ DIR!TOR H3S NO &2RISDI!TION O@ TH

!3S 3T "3R.

". TH HONOR3"+ RBION3+ DIR!TOR RRD IN @INDINB

TH3T !OMP+3IN3NT IS TH R3+ P3RTC IN INTRST 3NDH3S +B3+ !3P3!ITC TO @I+ TH !3S.

!. TH HONOR3"+ RBION3+ DIR!TOR RRD IN

3DOPTINB !OMP+3IN3NT?S !OMP2T3TION @OR 63B

3D&2STMNT 2NDR 63B ORDR NO. N!R789 3S "3SIS O@

RSPONDNT?S +I3"I+ITC.(0

The Secretar of +abor, b Order ($ of &une '', ())$, set aside the order of

the Re%ional Director and re*anded the records of the case Efor

reco*putation of the /a%e differentials usin% P $,'>(.88 as the basis of the

/a%e ad5ust*ent.E 3nd the Secretar held petitioner?s securit a%enc

E&OINT+C 3ND SVR3++C liable for /a%e differentials, the a*ount of/hich should be paid DIR!T+C to the securit %uards concerned.E

Petitioner?s Motion for Reconsideration of the DO+ Secretar?s Order of

&une '', ())$ havin% been denied b Order (# of October (8, ())$, the

present petition /as filed, petitioner contendin% that the DO+ Secretar

co**itted %rave abuse of discretion /hen he1

(. . . . TOT3++C IBNORD TH PROVISION O@ 3RTI!+ (') O@ TH

+3"OR !OD @OR PR@!TINB 3N 3PP3+ @ROM TH D!ISION O@

TH RBION3+ DIR!TOR 2NDR 3RTI!+ (') INVOFD "C

RSPONDNT SSSG

'. . . . DISRB3RDD TH PROVISION ON 3PP3+S @ROM TH

D!ISIONS OR RSO+2TIONS O@ TH RBION3+ DIR!TOR, DO+,

2NDR 3RTI!+ (') O@ TH +3"OR !OD, 3S 3MNDD "C

RP2"+I! 3!T NO. #:($G

9. . . . TOT3++C OVR+OOFD TH +36 3ND PRV3I+INB

&2RISPR2DN! 6HN IT 3!TD ON TH 3PP3+ O@ RSPONDNT













SSS.(:

Petitioner asserts that the Secretar of +abor does not have 5urisdiction to

revie/ appeals fro* decisions of the Re%ional Directors in co*plaints filed

under 3rticle (') of the +abor !ode(> /hich provides1

3RT. ('). R!OVRC O@ 63BS, SIMP+ MONC !+3IMS 3ND OTHR

"N@ITS. 2pon co*plaint of an interested part, the re%ional director of

the Depart*ent of +abor and *plo*ent or an dul authori<ed hearin%

officers of the Depart*ent is e*po/ered, throu%h su**ar proceedin% and

after due notice, to hear and decide an *atter involvin% the recover of

/a%es and other *onetar clai*s and benefits, includin% le%al interest,

o/in% to an e*ploee or person e*ploed in do*estic or household service

or househelper under this !ode, arisin% fro* e*ploer7e*ploee relations1

Provided, That such co*plaint does not include a clai* for reinstate*entG

Provided, further, That the a%%re%ate *one clai* of each e*ploee or

househelper does not eceed @ive Thousand pesos -P$,888.88. The

re%ional director or hearin% officer shall decide or resolve the co*plaint /ithin

thirt -98 calendar das fro* the date of the filin% of the sa*e. 3n su* thus

recovered on behalf of an e*ploee or househelper pursuant to this 3rticle

shall be held in a special deposit account b, and shall be paid on order of,

the Secretar of +abor and *plo*ent or the re%ional director directl to the

e*ploee or househelper concerned. 3n such su* not paid to the e*ploee

or househelper, because he cannot be located after dili%ent and reasonable

effort to locate hi* /ithin a period of three -9 ears, shall be held as a

special fund of the Depart*ent of +abor and *plo*ent to be used

eclusivel for the a*elioration and benefit of /or;ers.

3n decision or resolution of the re%ional director or officer pursuant to this

provision *a be appealed on the sa*e %rounds provided in 3rticle ''9 ofthis !ode, /ithin five -$ calendar das fro* receipt of a cop of said decision

or resolution, to the National +abor Relations !o**ission /hich shall resolve

the appeal /ithin ten -(8 calendar das fro* sub*ission of the last pleadin%

re4uired or allo/ed under its rules.

-*phasis supplied.

Petitioner thus contends that as the appeal of SSS /as filed /ith the /ron%

foru*, it should have been dis*issed.()

The SSS, on the other hand, contends that 3rticle ('>, not 3rticle ('), is

applicable to the case. 3rticle ('> provides1

3RT. ('>. VISITORI3+ 3ND N@OR!MNT PO6RS

-b Not/ithstandin% the provisions of 3rticle (') and '(: of this !ode to the

contrar, and in cases /here the relationship of e*ploer7e*ploee still









eists, the Secretar of +abor and *plo*ent or his dul authori<ed

representatives shall have the po/er to issue co*pliance orders to %ive

effect to labor le%islation based on the findin%s of labor e*plo*ent and

enforce*ent officers or industrial safet en%ineers *ade in the course of

inspection.

3n order issued b the dul authori<ed representative of the Secretar of

+abor and *plo*ent under this article *a be appealed to the latter.

-*phasis supplied.

Neither the petitioner?s contention nor the SSS?s is i*pressed /ith

*erit. Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation v. Court of

Appeals'8 instructs so. In that case, the securit a%enc filed a co*plaint

before the Re%ional Trial !ourt -RT! a%ainst the principal or client +apanda

for the up/ard ad5ust*ent of the contract rate in accordance /ith 6a%eOrder Nos. $ and #. +apanda ar%ued that it is the National +abor Relations

!o**ission, not the civil courts, /hich has 5urisdiction to resolve the issue in

the case, it involvin% the enforce*ent of /a%e ad5ust*ent and other benefits

due the a%enc?s securit %uards as *andated b several /a%e orders.

Holdin% that the RT! has 5urisdiction over the controvers, this !ourt ruled1

6e a%ree /ith the respondent that the RT! has 5urisdiction over the sub5ect

*atter of the present case. I( $' 4e 'e((e# $% a4 a%# ur$'ru#e%e ()a(

4)ere %o e*oyere*oyee rea($o%')$ e8$'(' be(4ee% ()e ar($e'

a%# %o $''ue $' $%oe# 4)$) *ay be re'oe# by re-ere%e (o ()e

Labor Co#e, o()er abor '(a(u(e' or a%y oe($e bar&a$%$%&

a&ree*e%(, $( $' ()e Re&$o%a Tr$a Cour( ()a( )a' ur$'#$($o%. I% $('o*a$%(, r$a(e re'o%#e%( $' %o( 'ee5$%& a%y re$e- u%#er ()e Labor

Co#e bu( 'ee5' ay*e%( o- a 'u* o- *o%ey a%# #a*a&e' o% aou%(

o- e($($o%er' ae&e# brea) o- $(' ob$&a($o% u%#er ()e$r Guar# Ser$e

Co%(ra(. T)e a($o% $' 4$()$% ()e rea* o- $$ a4 )e%e ur$'#$($o%

oer ()e a'e beo%&' (o ()e re&uar our('. :)$e ()e re'ou($o% o- ()e

$''ue $%oe' ()e a$a($o% o- abor a4', re-ere%e (o ()e abor o#e

4a' o%y -or ()e #e(er*$%a($o% o- ()e 'o$#ary $ab$$(y o- ()e e($($o%er

(o ()e re'o%#e%( 4)ere %o e*oyere*oyee rea($o% e8$'('.'(

-*phasis and underscorin% supplied.

In the case at bar, even if petitioner filed the co*plaint on his and also on

behalf of the securit %uards,'' the relief sou%ht has to do /ith the

enforce*ent of the contract bet/een hi* and the SSS /hich /as dee*ed

a*ended b virtue of 6a%e Order No. N!R789. The controvers sub5ect of

the case at bar is thus a civil dispute, the proper foru* for the resolution of

/hich is the civil courts.

"ut even assu*in% arguendo that petitioner?s co*plaint /ere filed /ith the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_112139_2000.html












proper foru*, for lac; of cause of action it *ust be dis*issed. a!p"i.n#t

3rticles (8#, (8: and (8) of the +abor !ode provide1

3RT. (8#. !ONTR3!TOR OR S2"!ONTR3!TOR. 6henever an

e*ploer enters into contract /ith another person for the perfor*ance of the

for*er?s /or;, the e*ploees of the contractor and of the latter?s

subcontractor, if an, shall be paid in accordance /ith the provisions of this

!ode.

In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pa the /a%e of his

e*ploees in accordance /ith this !ode, the e*ploer shall be 5ointl and

severall liable /ith his contractor or subcontractor to such e*ploees to the

etent of the /or; perfor*ed under the contract, in the sa*e *anner and

etent that he is liable to e*ploees directl e*ploed b hi*.

-*phasis and underscorin% supplied

3RT. (8: INDIR!T MP+OCR. The provisions of the i**ediatel

precedin% 3rticle shall li;e/ise appl to an person, partnership, association

or corporation /hich, not bein% an e*ploer, contracts /ith an independent

contractor for the perfor*ance of an /or;, tas;, 5ob or pro5ect.

3RT. (8). SO+ID3RC +I3"I+TC. The provisions of eistin% la/s to the

contrar not/ithstandin%, ever e*ploer or indirect e*ploer shall be held

responsible /ith his contractor or subcontractor for an violation of an

provision of this !ode. @or purposes of deter*inin% the etent of their civil

liabilit under this !hapter, the shall be considered as direct e*ploers.

-*phasis supplied.

In the case of a%le Securit 3%enc, Inc. v. N+R!,'9 this !ourt held1

The 6a%e Orders are eplicit that pa*ent of the increases are Eto be borneE

b the principal or client. ETo be borneE, ho/ever, does not *ean that the

principal, PTSI in this case, /ould directl pa the securit %uards the /a%e

and allo/ance increases because there is no privit of contract bet/een

the*. The securit %uards contractual relationship is /ith their i**ediate

e*ploer, 3B+. 3s an e*ploer, 3B+ is tas;ed, a*on% others, /ith the

pa*ent of their /a%es JSee 3rticle VII Sec. 9 of the !ontract for Securit

Services, supra and "autista v. Incion%, B.R. No. $'>'0, March (#, ()>>,

($> S!R3 ##$K.

On the other hand, there eisted a contractual a%ree*ent bet/een PTSI and

3B+ /herein the for*er availed of the securit services provided b the

latter. In return, the securit a%enc collects fro* its client pa*ent for its

securit services. This pa*ent covers the /a%es for the securit %uards and

also epenses for their supervision and trainin%, the %uards bonds, firear*s

/ith a**unitions, unifor*s and other e4uip*ents, accessories, tools,





*aterials and supplies necessar for the *aintenance of a securit force.

Pre*ises considered, the securit %uards i**ediate recourse for the

pa*ent of the increases is /ith their direct e*ploer, 3B+. Ho/ever, in

order for the securit a%enc to co*pl /ith the ne/ /a%e and allo/ance

rates it has to pa the securit %uards, the 6a%e Orders *ade specific

provision to a*end eistin% contracts for securit services b allo/in% the

ad5ust*ent of the consideration paid b the principal to the securit a%enc

concerned. 6hat the 6a%e Orders re4uire, therefore, is the a*end*ent of

the contract as to the consideration to cover the service contractors pa*ent

of the increases *andated. In the end, therefore, ulti*ate liabilit for the

pa*ent of the increases rests /ith the principal.

In vie/ of the fore%oin%, the securit %uards should clai* the a*ount of the

increases fro* 3B+. 2nder the +abor !ode, in case the a%enc fails to

pa the* the a*ounts clai*ed, PTSI should be held solidaril liable /ith

3B+J3rticles (8#, (8: and (8)K. Should 3B+ pa, it can clai* an

ad5ust*ent fro* PTSI for an increase in consideration to cover the increases

paable to the securit %uards.

-*phasis and underscorin% supplied.

Passin% on the fore%oin% dis4uisition in a%le, this !ourt, in +apanda,'0 held1

It is clear also fro* the fore%oin% that it is onl /hen JtheK contractor pas the

increases *andated that it can clai* an ad5ust*ent fro* the principal to

cover the increases paable to the securit %uards. T)e o%u'$o% ()a( ()e

r$&)( o- ()e o%(ra(or ;a' r$%$a #eb(or< (o reoer -ro* ()e r$%$a

;a' 'o$#ary o#eb(or< ar$'e' o%y $- )e )a' a$# ()e a*ou%(' -or 4)$)

bo() o- ()e* are o$%(y a%# 'eeray $abe $' $% $%e 4$() Ar($e 1217 o- ()e C$$ Co#e /hich provides1

E3rt. ('(:. Pa*ent *ade b one the solidar debtors etin%uishes the

obli%ation. If t/o or *ore solidar debtors offer to pa, the creditor *a

choose /hich offer to accept.

He /ho *ade pa*ent *a;e clai* fro* his co7debtors onl the share /hich

corresponds to each, /ith interest for the pa*ent alread *ade. If the

pa*ent is *ade before the debt is due, no interest for the intervenin% period

*a be de*anded. E'$ -*phasis and underscorin% supplied.

In fine, the liabilit of the SSS to rei*burse petitioner arises onl if and /hen

petitioner pas his e*ploee7securit %uards Ethe increasesE *andated b

6a%e Order No. N!R789.a!p"i.n#t

The records do not sho/ that petitioner has paid the *andated increases to

the securit %uards. The securit %uards in fact have filed a co*plaint'# /ith

the N+R! a%ainst petitioner relative to, a*on% other thin%s, underpa*ent of









/a%es.

6HR@OR, the present petition is hereb DISMISSD, and petitioner?s

co*plaint before the Re%ional Director is dis*issed for lac; of 5urisdiction

and cause of action.

SO ORDRD.

Puno, -!hair*an, Pan%aniban, Sandoval7Butierre< and !orona, &&., concur.

Foo(%o(e'

( Rollo at (':7(99.

' Id . at (8(7(89.

9 Id . at (8$.

0 Id . at (8:.

$ Id. at 0)), $'9.

# Id . at (8)7((#.

: Id . at (:'7(>8.

> Id . at ((>7('#.

) (:9 S!R3 0:) -()>).

(8 Rollo at '907'0(.

(( Id . at '097'0#.

(' Id . at '))798(.

(9 Id . at 98979(0.

(0

Id. at 98>798).

($ Id . at 9##79:(.

(# Id . at 9:979:$.

(: Id . at (0.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_122791_2003.html#rnt1





































(> Id . at $(8.

() Id. at (:.

'8 9'0 S!R3 9) -'888, citin% $anli%ue& v. Court of Appeals, '9'

S!R3 0': -())0 and Dai'C"i Electronics $anufacturing Corp. v.

(illarama, )r., '9> S!R3 '#: -())0.

'( Ibid .

'' Rollo at ((0.

'9 Supra.

'0 Supra.

'$ Id . at $8.

'# Records at 9>)79):.

The +a/phil Pro5ect 7 3rellano +a/ @oundation



















14. Urbanes v Sec of Labor

Documents

Transcript of 14. Urbanes v Sec of Labor