Osias Academy v. Department of Labor and Employment

Alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, this petition for certiorari seeks the annulment of the Order^[1] of the Department of Labor and Employment which reversed the Order^[2] of the Regional Director dismissing the complaint for money claims filed by herein private respondents in LRD Cases Nos. R05-05-81 and R05-19-81 entitled "Eva Cayetano et. al., Conchita Mercado et. al., vs. Osias­ Academy/Monica de Castro".

Private respondents were the complainants in the labor case below while petitioner Osias Academy was the respondent.

The factual background of the case as found by the Regional Director, Regional Office No. 5 of Legaspi City, is as follows:

"On January 19, 1981, complainants Eva Cayetano, Susan E. Fuellas, Julieta A. Manalo, Nela Gabelo, Teresa Belazon, Elvira B. Gacis, Lourdes V. Correa and Teddy L. Guanizo, all members of the teaching staff of the Osias Academy, Matnog, Sorsogon, filed complaints for underpayment, non-payment of living allowances and the 13th month bonus against the latter.

"Conciliation of the case (05-81) was assigned to Mrs. Emelita S. Ongtangco who scheduled the initial conference on January 30, 1981.

xxx                xxx                   xxx

"On July 2, 1981, complainant Eva Cayetano, x x x sent a telegram-complaint to Minister Bias F. Ople, Ministry of Labor & Employment, Manila requesting referral of this case to the Arbitration Branch due to the alleged refusal of the Regional Director to refer case to the Arbitration Branch for hearing on the merits.  The telegram was transmitted to this Office, thru the Assistant Minister, on July 6, 1981.

"In another development, four (4) new complainants filed their complaints against the same respondent (19-81) on April 21, 1981, namely:  Conchita Mercado, for underpayment, overtime pay, violations of PD 851 and non-payment of living allowances on the differential allowances on the matter.  Complainant Estrella Gaton filed a similar complaint against the same respondent, Necitas Gacis and Evelyn B. Garais.

"To re-state the position taken by the herein complainants, the common demands from their employer are:  underpayment, violation of PD 851, violation of Presidential decrees on Cost of Living Allowance and in the case of complainant Eva Cayetano another cause of action for non-payment of vacation and sick leave has been included.

"Going through the records of the instant cases, the complainants' position questioning the correctness in the computation of salaries and wages and the economic benefits grantable by law which was arrived at in a complaint inspection undertaken by duly assigned Labor Regulation Officers of this Office on September 29, 1980 was made very manifest.

"The Labor Regulation Officers, after due investigation, came to the conclusion that the respondent as of the date of inspection has been found to have underpaid its employees including the complainants herein in the benefits granted by PDs 1678 and 1713 in the total amount of P1,955.50 more specifically detailed as follows:

"Exercising their authority as Labor Regulation Officers, they ordered the respondent to pay the deficiency thru a restitution payroll which was paid on 20 October 1980.

"From this point on, the question foremost in the mind of the Office is:  Was payment in reference to the benefits under the Presidential issuances on Emergency Cost of Living Allowances correct or in compliance with the applicable law?

"The records submitted by the respondent is to the effect that the findings on ECOLA deficiency was implemented up to and including the month of March, 1981.

"However, since the other issue raised by the complainants is the correctness of their wages, this Office in fairness to the parties to the above entitled case and other similarly situated employees and employers forwarded a query to the Bureau of Labor Standards for a final and determinative opinion regarding the correct wages of school teachers or knowledge workers who render actual service for 5-days in a week, more specifically, from Monday thru Friday.  A telegraphic answer to the query by the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Standards is hereby quoted in its entirety, principally because of its authoritativeness:

"RE:  YOUR QUERY WHAT GROUP PRIVATE SCHOOLS TEACHERS FALL STOP EMPLOYEES GROUP IF DETERMINE BY NUMBER OF DAYS WORK IN A WEEK AND WHETHER REST DAY ARE CONSIDERED PAID STOP THUS IF PRIVATE SCHOOLS TEACHERS WORK MONDAY TO FRIDAY AND REST DAY CONSIDERED PAID THEY WOULD FALL UNDER GROUP 3 BUT IF REST DAY NOT CONSIDERED PAID THEY WOULD FALL UNDER GROUP 4 STOP AND IF THEY WORK MONDAY TO SATURDAY BUT THEIR REST DAY NOT CONSIDERED PAID THEY WOULD FALL UNDER GROUP 2.  x x x

DIRECTOR ZAPANTA"

(Rollo, pp. 28-32)