Labor Law and Social Legislation › Labor Adjudication › Labor Agencies › Dole

a. Regional Directors

JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

In order that the causes of action under Art. 224(a) may prosper (and inferentially, in order that a LA can exercise jurisdiction over cases thereon), an indispensable precondition must be met – the prior existence of an EER between the parties. (Palomado v. NLRC, (G.R. No. 96520, 1996)

A money claim arising from employer-employee relations, except SSS, ECC/Medicare claims, is within the jurisdiction of:

Labor Arbiter	Regional Director
Claim, regardless of amount, is accompanied with a claim of reinstatement; or, in an Art. 129 money-claim proceeding, the aggregate claim of an employee exceeds P5,000.	Money claim is not accompanied by reinstatement AND the aggregate money claim of each employee does not exceed P5,000 (Labor Code, Art. 129)

Separately, under Labor Code, Art. 128(b), a Regional Director may order compliance with labor standards, including payment of monetary benefits, regardless of the amount involved.

Jurisdiction over Contested Cases Forwarded from Regional Director to Labor Arbiter

The employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
In order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
The resolution of the dispute requires the application and interpretation of laws, rules, or contracts, which necessitates the formal adjudicatory process of the Labor Arbiter.

If all requisites are present, the labor standard case falls under the exception clause under Art. 128(b), and the RD will need to endorse the case to the appropriate LA (Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 162396, 2007)