2nd DIVISION G.R. No. 152396 November 20, 2007 EX-BATAAN VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC., vs THE SECRETARY OF LABOR BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, et.al. CARPIO, J. petition for review1 with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction

1. On the Regional Director's Jurisdiction over EBVSAI

The Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices19 (rules) specifically state that notices and copies of orders shall be served on the parties or their duly authorized representatives at their last known address or, if represented by counsel, through the latter. The Rules of Court apply in a suppletory character only in the absence of any applicable provision.

EBVSAI does not deny having received the notices of hearing. As such, the Regional Director acquired jurisdiction and EBVSAI can no longer question it.

2. On the Regional Director's Jurisdiction over the Money Claims

Article 128 of the Labor Code(as amended by R.A. No. 7730) excludes from its coverage Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code by the phrase "(N)otwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217of this Code to the contrary x x x". It strengthens the power of the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officer or industrial safety engineer made in the course of inspection.

We held likewise in Cirineo Bowling Plaza, Inc. v. Sensing, where the Court said that "the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised even where the individual claim exceeds P5,000."

2. It is when the labor standards case is covered by the exception clause of Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, that the Regional Director will have to endorse the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The following elements must be present: (a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon; (b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and (c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. The employer shall raise such objections during the hearing of the case or any time after receiving the notice of inspection results.

The Regional Director validly assumed jurisdiction because such jurisdiction was exercised in accordance with Article 128(b) of the Labor Code and the case does not fall under the exception clause.

EBVSAI did not contest the findings of the labor regulations officer during the hearing or after receipt of the notice of inspection results- it did so only in its supplemental motion for reconsideration before the Regional Director. But the Regional Director and the Secretary considered EBVSAI's documentary evidence and found it wanting. The Secretary of Labor also doubted the veracity and authenticity of EBVSAI's documentary evidence.

The evidence of EBVSAI were verifiable in the normal course of inspection because all employment records of the employees should be kept and maintained in or about the premises of the workplace, the establishment where private respondents were regularly assigned.27