people's brodcating service inc. vs. sec. of labor (may 8, 2009)

7/27/2019 People's Brodcating Service Inc. vs. Sec. of Labor (May 8, 2009)

1/31

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 179652 May 8, 2009

PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING BOMBO RAD!O P"ILS.,INC.#,Petitioner,vs.T"E SECRETAR! O$ T"E DEPARTMENT O$ LABOR ANDEMPLO!MENT, T"E REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLEREGION %II, a& (ANDELEON (UE)AN,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA,J.:

he present controvers! concerns a "atter of #rsti"pression, re$uirin% as it does the deter"ination of thede"arcation line bet&een the prero%ative of theDepart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent (DO'E) Secretar! andhis dul! authori*ed representatives, on the one hand, andthe +urisdiction of the National 'abor Relations Co""ission,on the other, under rticle -/ (b) of the 'abor Code in aninstance &here the e"plo!er has challen%ed the +urisdictionof the DO'E at the ver! #rst level on the %round that no

e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship ever e1isted bet&een theparties.

I.

he instant petition for certiorari under Rule 23 assails thedecision and the resolution of the Court of ppeals dated 2October 442 and 2 5une 446, respectivel!, in C.. 7.R.CE80SP No. 44/33.-

he petition traces its ori%ins to a co"plaint #led b!5andeleon 5ue*an (respondent) a%ainst People9s8roadcastin% Service, Inc. (8o"bo Rad!o Phils., Inc)(petitioner) for ille%al deduction, non0pa!"ent of serviceincentive leave, -:th "onth pa!, pre"iu" pa! for holida!

and rest da! and ille%al di"inution of bene#ts, dela!edpa!"ent of &a%es and non0covera%e of SSS, P70I8I7 andPhilhealth before the Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent(DO'E) Re%ional O;ce No. VII, Cebu Cit!.On the basis ofthe co"plaint, the DO'E conducted a plant level inspectionon : Septe"ber 44:. In the Inspection Report


2/31

Petitioner &as re$uired to rectif!>restitute the violations&ithin #ve (3) da!s fro" receipt. No recti#cation &aseHected b! petitioner thus, su""ar! investi%ations &ereconducted, &ith the parties eventuall! ordered to sub"ittheir respective position papers.2

In his Order dated 6


3/31

he si%ni#cance of this case "a! be reduced to one si"ple$uestionLdoes the Secretar! of 'abor have the po&er todeter"ine the e1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship

o resolve this pivotal issue, one "ust loo into the e1tent ofthe visitorial and enforce"ent po&er of the DO'E found inrticle -/ (b) of the 'abor Code, as a"ended b! Republicct 66:4. It reads?

rticle -/ (b) Not&ithstandin% the provisions of rticles -Jand -6 of this Code to the contrar!, and in cases &here therelationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ists, the Secretar!of 'abor and E"plo!"ent or his dul! authori*edrepresentatives shall have the po&er to issue co"plianceorders to %ive eHect to the labor standards provisions of thisCode and other labor le%islation based on the #ndin%s of

labor e"plo!"ent and enforce"ent o;cers or industrialsafet! en%ineers "ade in the course of inspection. heSecretar! or his dul! authori*ed representative shall issue&rits of e1ecution to the appropriate authorit! for theenforce"ent of their orders, e1cept in cases &here thee"plo!er contests the #ndin%s of the labor e"plo!"ent andenforce"ent o;cer and raises issues supported b!docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in thecourse of inspection. (e"phasis supplied)

1 1 1

he provision is $uite e1plicit that the visitorial andenforce"ent po&er of the DO'E co"es into pla! onl! =incases &hen the relationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee stille1ists.= It also underscores the avo&ed ob+ective underl!in%the %rant of po&er to the DO'E &hich is =to %ive eHect tothe labor standard provision of this Code and other laborle%islation.= Of course, a person9s entitle"ent to laborstandard bene#ts under the labor la&s presupposes thee1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship in the #rstplace.

he clause =in cases &here the relationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ists= si%ni#es that the e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship "ust have e1isted even before the e"er%enceof the controvers!. Necessaril!, the DO'E9s po&er does notappl! in t&o instances, na"el!? (a) &here the e"plo!er0

e"plo!ee relationship has ceased and (b) &here no suchrelationship has ever e1isted.

he #rst situation is cate%oricall! covered b! Sec. :, Rule --of the Rules on the Disposition of 'abor StandardsCases-3issued b! the DO'E Secretar!. It reads?

Rule II MONE C'IMS RISIN7


4/31

absence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship bet&een theevidentiar! parties fro" the start.

Clearl! the la& accords a prero%ative to the N'RC over theclai" &hen the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship has

ter"inated or such relationship has not arisen at all. hereason is obvious. In the second situation especiall!, thee1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship is a "atter&hich is not easil! deter"inable fro" an ordinar!inspection, necessaril! so, because the ele"ents of such arelationship are not veri#able fro" a "ere oculare1a"ination. he intricacies and i"plications of ane"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship de"and that the level ofscrutin! should be far above the cursor! and the"echanical. hile docu"ents, particularl! docu"ents foundin the e"plo!er9s

o;ce are the pri"ar! source "aterials, &hat "a! provedecisive are factors related to the histor! of the e"plo!er9sbusiness operations, its current state as &ell as acceptedconte"porar! practices in the industr!. More often than not,the $uestion of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship beco"es abattle of evidence, the deter"ination of &hich should beco"prehensive and intensive and therefore best left to thespeciali*ed $uasi0+udicial bod! that is the N'RC.

It can be assu"ed that the DO'E in the e1ercise of itsvisitorial and enforce"ent po&er so"eho& has to "ae adeter"ination of the e1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship. Such prero%atival deter"ination, ho&ever,cannot be coe1tensive &ith the visitorial and enforce"entpo&er itself. Indeed, such deter"ination is "erel!preli"inar!, incidental and collateral to the DO'E9s pri"ar!function of enforcin% labor standards provisions. hedeter"ination of the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship is still pri"aril! lod%ed &ith the N'RC. his isthe "eanin% of the clause =in cases &here the relationshipof e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ists= in rt. -/ (b).

hus, before the DO'E "a! e1ercise its po&ers under rticle-/, t&o i"portant $uestions "ust be resolved? (-) Doesthe e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship still e1ist, oralternativel!, &as there ever an e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship to spea of and () re there violations of the

'abor Code or of an! labor la&

he e1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship is astatutor! prere$uisite to and a li"itation on the po&er of theSecretar! of 'abor, one &hich the le%islative branch isentitled to i"pose. he rationale underl!in% this li"itation isto eli"inate the prospect of co"petin% conclusions of theSecretar! of 'abor and the N'RC, on a "atter frau%ht &ith$uestions of fact and la&, &hich is best resolved b! the$uasi0+udicial bod!, &hich is the NR'C, rather than anad"inistrative o;cial of the e1ecutive branch of the%overn"ent. If the Secretar! of 'abor proceeds to e1ercise

his visitorial and enforce"ent po&ers absent the #rstre$uisite, as the dissent proposes, his o;ce confers+urisdiction on itself &hich it cannot other&ise ac$uire.

he approach su%%ested b! the dissent is fro&ned upon b!co""on la&. o &it?

AIBt is a %eneral rule, that no court of li"ited +urisdiction can%ive itself +urisdiction b! a &ron% decision on a pointcollateral to the "erits of the case upon &hich the li"it toits +urisdiction depends and ho&ever its decision "a! be#nal on all particulars, "ain% up to%ether that sub+ect"atter &hich, if true, is &ithin its +urisdiction, and ho&evernecessar! in "an! cases it "a! be for it to "ae apreli"inar! in$uir!, &hether so"e collateral "atter be or benot &ithin the li"its, !et, upon this preli"inar! $uestion, itsdecision "ust al&a!s be open to in$uir! in the superiorcourt.-/

"ore liberal interpretative "ode, =pra%"atic or functionalanal!sis,= has also e"er%ed in ascertainin% the +urisdictionalboundaries of ad"inistrative a%encies &hose +urisdiction is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt18


5/31

established b! statute. nder this approach, the Courte1a"ines the intended function of the tribunal and decides&hether a particular provision falls &ithin or outside thatfunction, rather than "ain% the provision itself thedeter"inin% centerpiece of the anal!sis.-Jet even under

this "ore e1pansive approach, the dissent fails.

readin% of rt. -/ of the 'abor Code reveals that theSecretar! of 'abor or his authori*ed representatives &as%ranted visitorial and enforce"ent po&ers for the purposeof deter"inin% violations of, and enforcin%, the 'abor Codeand an! labor la&, &a%e order, or rules and re%ulationsissued pursuant thereto. Necessaril!, the actual e1istence ofan e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship aHects the co"ple1ionof the putative #ndin%s that the Secretar! of 'abor "a!deter"ine, since e"plo!ees are entitled to a diHerent set ofri%hts under the 'abor Code fro" the e"plo!er as opposed

to non0e"plo!ees. "on% these diHerentiated ri%hts arethose accorded b! the =labor standards= provisions of the'abor Code, &hich the Secretar! of 'abor is "andated toenforce. If there is no e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship in the#rst place, the dut! of the e"plo!er to adhere to those laborstandards &ith respect to the non0e"plo!ees is$uestionable.

his decision should not be considered as placin% an undueburden on the Secretar! of 'abor in the e1ercise of visitorialand enforce"ent po&ers, nor seen as an unprecedenteddi"inution of the sa"e, but rather a reco%nition of the

statutor! li"itations thereon. "ere assertion of absence ofe"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship does not deprive the DO'Eof +urisdiction over the clai" under rticle -/ of the 'aborCode. t least a pri"a facie sho&in% of such absence ofrelationship, as in this case, is needed to preclude the DO'Efro" the e1ercise of its po&er. he Secretar! of 'abor &ouldnot have been precluded fro" e1ercisin% the po&ers underrticle -/ (b) over petitioner if another person &ith better0%rounded clai" of e"plo!"ent than that &hich respondenthad. Respondent, especiall! if he &ere an e"plo!ee, could

have ver! &ell en+oined other e"plo!ees to co"plain &iththe DO'E, and, at the sa"e ti"e, petitioner could ill0aHordto disclai" an e"plo!"ent relationship &ith all of thepeople under its ae%is.

ithout a doubt, petitioner, since the inception of this casehad been consistent in "aintainin% that respondent is notits e"plo!ee. Certainl!, a preli"inar! deter"ination, basedon the evidence oHered, and noted b! the 'abor Inspectordurin% the inspection as &ell as sub"itted durin% theproceedin%s before the Re%ional Director puts in %enuinedoubt the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship.


6/31

relationship. he onset of arbitrariness is the advent ofdenial of substantive due process.

s a %eneral rule, the Supre"e Court is not a trier of facts.his applies &ith %reater force in cases before $uasi0+udicial

a%encies &hose #ndin%s of fact are accorded %reat respectand even #nalit!. o be sure, the sa"e #ndin%s should besupported b! substantial evidence fro" &hich the saidtribunals can "ae its o&n independent evaluation of thefacts. 'ie&ise, it "ust not be rendered &ith %rave abuse ofdiscretion other&ise, this Court &ill not uphold thetribunals9 conclusion.4In the sa"e "anner, this Court &illnot hesitate to set aside the labor tribunal9s #ndin%s of fact&hen it is clearl! sho&n that the! &ere arrived at arbitraril!or in disre%ard of the evidence on record or &hen there issho&in% of fraud or error of la&.-

t the onset, it is the Court9s considered vie& that thee1istence of e"plo!er0 e"plo!ee relationship could havebeen easil! resolved, or at least pri"a facie deter"ined b!the labor inspector, durin% the inspection b! looin% at therecords of petitioner &hich can be found in the &orpre"ises. Nevertheless, even if the labor inspector hadnoted petitioner9s "anifestation and docu"ents in theNotice of Inspection Results, it is clear that he did not %ive"uch credence to said evidence, as he did not #nd the needto investi%ate the "atter further. Considerin% that thedocu"ents sho&n b! petitioner, na"el!? cash vouchers,checs and state"ents of account, su""ar! billin%s

evidencin% pa!"ent to the alle%ed real e"plo!er ofrespondent, letter0contracts deno"inated as =E"plo!"entfor a Speci#c ndertain%,= pri"a facie ne%ate thee1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship, the laborinspector could have e1erted a bit "ore eHort and looedinto petitioner9s pa!roll, for e1a"ple, or its roll ofe"plo!ees, or intervie&ed other e"plo!ees in the pre"ises.fter all, the labor inspector, as a labor re%ulation o;cer is%iven =access to e"plo!er9s records and pre"ises at an!ti"e of da! or ni%ht &henever &or is bein% undertaen

therein, and the ri%ht to cop! therefro", to $uestion an!e"plo!ee and investi%ate an! fact, condition or "atter&hich "a! be necessar! to deter"ine violations or &hich"a! aid in the enforce"ent of this Code and of an! laborla&, &a%e order or rules and re%ulations pursuant

thereto.=

Despite these far0reachin% po&ers of laborre%ulation o;cers, records reveal that no additional eHorts&ere e1erted in the course of the inspection.

he Court further e1a"ined the records and discovered toits dis"a! that even the Re%ional Director turned a blinde!e to the evidence presented b! petitioner and reliedinstead on the self0servin% clai"s of respondent.

In his position paper, respondent clai"ed that he &as hiredb! petitioner in Septe"ber -JJ2 as a radio talent>spinner,&orin% fro" /?44 a" until 3 p."., si1 da!s a &ee, on a

%ross rate of P24.44 per script, earnin% an avera%eof P-3,4444.44 per "onth, pa!able on a se"i0"onthl!basis. Ke added that the pa!"ent of &a%es &as dela!edthat he &as not %iven an! service incentive leave or its"onetar! co""utation, or his -:th "onth pa! and that he&as not "ade a "e"ber of the Social Securit! S!ste"(SSS), Pa%0Ibi% and PhilKealth. 8! 5anuar! 44-, the nu"berof radio pro%ra"s of &hich respondent &as a talent>spinner&as reduced, resultin% in the reduction of his "onthl!inco"e fro" P-3,444.44 to onl! P

@,444.44, an a"ount hecould barel! live on. nent the clai" of petitioner that noe"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship ever e1isted, respondent

ar%ued that that he &as hired b! petitioner, his &a%es &erepaid under the pa!roll of the latter, he &as under the controlof petitioner and its a%ents, and it &as petitioner &ho hadthe po&er to dis"iss hi" fro" his e"plo!"ent.:In supportof his position paper, respondent attached a photocop! ofan identi#cation card purportedl! issued b! petitioner,bearin% respondent9s picture and na"e &ith the desi%nation=Spinner= at the bac of the I.D., the follo&in% is &ritten? =his certi#es that the card holder is a dul! uthori*ed MEDIRepresentative of 8OM8O RDO PKI'IPPINES Q KE NO.-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt23


7/31

Radio Net&or in the Countr! 8S RDO8OM8O=@Respondent lie&ise included a Certi#cation&hich reads?

his is to certif! that MR. 5NDE'EON 5EN is a pro%ra"

e"plo!ee of PEOP'E9S 8RODCSIN7 SERVICES, INC.(DM


8/31

KMN RESORCE DEPRMEN

(Si%ned)5EN'IN D. P'ERKRD KED

Respondent tried to address the discrepanc! bet&een hisidenti#cation card and the standard identi#cation cardsissued b! petitioner to its e"plo!ees b! ar%uin% that &hathe anne1ed to his position paper &as the old identi#cationcard issued to hi" b! petitioner. Ke then presented aphotocop! of another =old= identi#cation card, this ti"epurportedl! issued to one of the e"plo!ees &ho &as issuedthe ne& identi#cation card presented b!petitioner.JRespondent9s ar%u"ent does not convince. If it&ere true that he is an e"plo!ee of petitioner, he &ouldhave been issued a ne& identi#cation card si"ilar to the

ones presented b! petitioner, and he should have presenteda cop! of such ne& identi#cation card. Kis failure to sho& ane& identi#cation card "erel! de"onstrates that &hat hehas is onl! his =Media= ID, &hich does not constitute proof ofhis e"plo!"ent &ith petitioner.

It has lon% been established that in ad"inistrative and$uasi0+udicial proceedin%s, substantial evidence is su;cientas a basis for +ud%"ent on the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. Substantial evidence, &hich is the$uantu" of proof re$uired in labor cases, is =that a"ount ofrelevant evidence &hich a reasonable "ind "i%ht accept asade$uate to +ustif! a conclusion.=:4No particular for" ofevidence is re$uired to prove the e1istence of suche"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. n! co"petent andrelevant evidence to prove the relationship "a! bead"itted.:-Kence, &hile no particular for" of evidence isre$uired, a #ndin% that such relationship e1ists "ust stillrest on so"e substantial evidence. Moreover, thesubstantialit! of the evidence depends on its $uantitative as&ell as its qualitativeaspects.:

In the instant case, save for respondent9s self0servin%alle%ations and self0defeatin% evidence, there is nosubstantial basis to &arrant the Re%ional Director9s #ndin%that respondent is an e"plo!ee of petitioner. Interestin%l!,the Order of the Secretar! of 'abor den!in% petitioner9s

appeal dated 6 5anuar! 443, as &ell as the decision of theCourt of ppeals dis"issin% the petition for certiorari, aresilent on the issue of the e1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship, &hich further su%%ests that no realand proper deter"ination the e1istence of such relationship&as ever "ade b! these tribunals. Even the dissent sirteda&a! fro" the issue of the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship and convenientl! i%nored the dearth ofevidence presented b! respondent.

lthou%h substantial evidence is not a function of $uantit!but rather of $ualit!, the peculiar environ"ental

circu"stances of the instant case de"and that so"ethin%"ore should have been proHered.::Kad there been otherproofs of e"plo!"ent, such as respondent9s inclusion inpetitioner9s pa!roll, or a clear e1ercise of control, the Court&ould have a;r"ed the #ndin% of e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship. he Re%ional Director, therefore, co""itted%rievous error in orderin% petitioner to ans&er forrespondent9s clai"s. Moreover, &ith the conclusion that noe"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship has ever e1isted bet&eenpetitioner and respondent, it is cr!stal0clear that the DO'ERe%ional Director had no +urisdiction over respondent9sco"plaint. hus, the i"provident e1ercise of po&er b! the

Secretar! of 'abor and the Re%ional Director behooves thecourt to sub+ect their actions for revie& and to invalidate allthe subse$uent orders the! issued.

IV.

he records sho& that petitioner9s appeal &as deniedbecause it had alle%edl! failed to post a cash or suret!bond. hat it attached instead to its appeal &as the 'etter%ree"ent:@e1ecuted b! petitioner and its ban, the cash
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt34


9/31

voucher,:3and the Deed of ssi%n"ent of 8anDeposits.:2ccordin% to the DO'E, these docu"ents do notconstitute the cash or suret! bond conte"plated b! la&thus, it is as if no cash or suret! bond &as posted &hen it#led its appeal.

he Court does not a%ree.

he provision on appeals fro" the DO'E Re%ional O;ces tothe DO'E Secretar! is in the last para%raph of rt. -/ (b) ofthe 'abor Code, &hich reads?

n order issued b! the dul! authori*ed representative of theSecretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent under this article "a!be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a"onetar! a&ard, an appeal b! the e"plo!er "a! beperfected onl! upon the postin% of a cash or suret! bondissued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan! dul! accredited b!the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent in the a"ounte$uivalent to the "onetar! a&ard in the order appealedfro". (e"phasis supplied)

hile the re$uire"ents for perfectin% an appeal "ust bestrictl! follo&ed as the! are considered indispensableinterdictions a%ainst needless dela!s and for orderl!dischar%e of +udicial business, the la& does ad"ite1ceptions &hen &arranted b! the circu"stances.echnicalit! should not be allo&ed to stand in the &a! of

e$uitabl! and co"pletel! resolvin% the ri%hts andobli%ations of the parties.:6hus, in so"e cases, the bondre$uire"ent on appeals involvin% "onetar! a&ards hadbeen rela1ed, such as &hen (i) there &as substantialco"pliance &ith the Rules (ii) the surroundin% facts andcircu"stances constitute "eritorious %round to reduce thebond (iii) a liberal interpretation of the re$uire"ent of anappeal bond &ould serve the desired ob+ective of resolvin%controversies on the "erits or (iv) the appellants, at thever! least e1hibited their &illin%ness and>or %ood faith b!postin% a partial bond durin% the re%le"entar! period.:/

revie& of the docu"ents sub"itted b! petitioner is calledfor to deter"ine &hether the! should have been ad"ittedas or in lieu of the suret! or cash bond to sustain the appealand serve the ends of substantial +ustice.

he Deed of ssi%n"ent reads?

DEED O< SSI7NMEN O< 8NT DEPOSIIK SPECI' POER O< ORNE

TNO '' MEN 8 KESE PRESENS?

hat I, 7REMN 8. SO'NE in "! capacit! as StationMana%er of DM< Cebu Cit!, PEOP'E9S 8RODCSIN7SERVICES, INC., a corporation dul! authori*ed and e1istin%under and b! virtue of the la&s of the Philippines, for and inconsideration of the su" of PESOS? O KNDRED KREEKOSND SEVEN KNDRED EN SIU PESOS :4>-44ON' (P4:,62.:4) Phil. Currenc!, as CSK 8OND7RNEE for the "onetar! a&ard in favor to the PlaintiHin the 'abor Case doceted as 'SED Case No. R4644044:04J0CI04J, no& pendin% appeal.

hat Respondent0ppellant do hereb! undertae to%uarantee available and su;cient funds covered b!Platinu" Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@ ofPEOP'E9S 8RODCSIN7 SERVICES, INC. in the a"ount ofPESOS? O KNDRED KREE KOSND SEVEN KNDRED

EN SIU PESOS :4>-44 ON' (P4:,62.:4) pa!ableto PlaintiH0ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"entRe%ional O;ce VII at ueen Cit! Develop"ent 8an, Cebu8ranch, Sancian%o St. Cebu Cit!.

It is understood that the said ban has the full control ofPlatinu" Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@ fro" andafter this date and that said su" cannot be &ithdra&n b!the PlaintiH0ppellee> Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt38


10/31

Re%ional O;ce VII until such ti"e that a rit of E1ecutionshall be ordered b! the ppellate O;ce.


11/31

"easl! co"pared to the total "onetar! a&ard in the+ud%"ent.@

V.

nother $uestion of technicalit! &as posed a%ainst theinstant petition in the hope that it &ould not be %iven duecourse. Respondent asserts that petitioner pursued the&ron% "ode of appeal and thus the instant petition "ust bedis"issed.1avvphi1.zw+Once "ore, the Court is notconvinced.

petition for certiorari is the proper re"ed! &hen an!tribunal, board or o;cer e1ercisin% +udicial or $uasi0+udicialfunctions has acted &ithout or in e1cess of its +urisdiction, or&ith %rave abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lac or e1cessof +urisdiction and there is no appeal, nor an! plain speed!,

and ade$uate re"ed! at la&. here is =%rave abuse ofdiscretion= &hen respondent acts in a capricious or&hi"sical "anner in the e1ercise of its +ud%"ent as to bee$uivalent to lac of +urisdiction.@:

Respondent "a! have a point in assertin% that in this case aRule 23 petition is a &ron% "ode of appeal, as indeed the&rit of certiorari is an e1traordinar! re"ed!, and certiorari+urisdiction is not to be e$uated &ith appellate +urisdiction.Nevertheless, it is settled, as a %eneral proposition, that theavailabilit! of an appeal does not foreclose recourse to the

e1traordinar! re"edies, such as certiorariand prohibition,&here appeal is not ade$uate or e$uall! bene#cial, speed!and su;cient, as &here the orders of the trial court &ereissued in e1cess of or &ithout +urisdiction, or there is need topro"ptl! relieve the a%%rieved part! fro" the in+uriouseHects of the acts of an inferior court or tribunal, e.g., thecourt has authori*ed e1ecution of the +ud%"ent.@@his Courthas even reco%ni*ed that a recourse to certiorari is propernot onl! &here there is a clear deprivation of petitioner9sfunda"ental ri%ht to due process, but so also &here other

special circu"stances &arrant i""ediate and "ore directaction.@3

In one case, it &as held that the e1traordinar! &rit ofcertiorari &ill lie if it is satisfactoril! established that the

tribunal acted capriciousl! and &hi"sicall! in total disre%ardof evidence "aterial to or even decisive of thecontrovers!,@2and if it is sho&n that the refusal to allo& aRule 23 petition &ould result in the inWiction of an in+usticeon a part! b! a +ud%"ent that evidentl! &as rendered&hi"sicall! and capriciousl!, i%norin% and disre%ardin%uncontroverted facts and fa"iliar le%al principles &ithoutan! valid cause &hatsoever.@6

It "ust be re"e"bered that a &ide breadth of discretion is%ranted a court of +ustice in certiorari proceedin%s.@/heCourt has not too infre$uentl! %iven due course to a petition

for certiorari, even &hen the proper re"ed! &ould havebeen an appeal, &here valid and co"pellin% considerations&ould &arrant such a recourse.@JMoreover, the Courtallo&ed a Rule 23 petition, despite the availabilit! of plain,speed! or ade$uate re"ed!, in vie& of the i"portance ofthe issues raised

therein.34he rules &ere also rela1ed b! the Court afterconsiderin% the public interest involved in the case3-&henpublic &elfare and the advance"ent of public polic!dictates &hen the broader interest of +ustice so re$uires&hen the &rits issued are null and void or &hen the$uestioned order a"ounts to an oppressive e1ercise of+udicial authorit!.3

=he peculiar circu"stances of this case &arrant, as &e heldin Republic v. Court of ppeals, -46 SCR 34@, 3@, theXe1ercise once "ore of our e1clusive prero%ative to suspendour o&n rules or to e1e"pt a particular case fro" itsoperation as in 1 1 Republic of the Philippines v. Court ofppeals, et al., (/: SCR @3:, @6/0@/4 A-J6/B), thus? X 1 1he Rules have been drafted &ith the pri"ar! ob+ective of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt52


12/31

enhancin% fair trials and e1peditin% +ustice. s a corollar!, iftheir applications and operation tend to subvert and defeatinstead of pro"ote and enhance it, their suspension is+usti#ed.=3:

he Re%ional Director full! relied on the self0servin%alle%ations of respondent and "isinterpreted the docu"entspresented as evidence b! respondent. o "ae "atters&orse, DO'E denied petitioner9s appeal based solel! onpetitioner9s alle%ed failure to #le a cash or suret! bond,&ithout an! discussion on the "erits of the case. Since thepetition for certiorari before the Court of ppeals sou%ht thereversal of the t&o aforesaid orders, the appellate courtnecessaril! had to e1a"ine the evidence ane& to deter"ine&hether the conclusions of the DO'E &ere supported b! theevidence presented. It appears, ho&ever, that the Court ofppeals did not even revie& the assailed orders and focused

instead on a %eneral discussion of due process and the+urisdiction of the Re%ional Director. Kad the appellate courttrul! revie&ed the records of the case, it &ould have seenthat there e1isted valid and su;cient %rounds for #ndin%%rave abuse of discretion on the part of the DO'E Secretar!as &ell the Re%ional Director. In rulin% and actin% as it did,the Court #nds that the Court of ppeals "a! be properl!sub+ected to its certiorari +urisdiction. fter all, this Court haspreviousl! ruled that the e1traordinar! &rit of certiorari &illlie if it is satisfactoril!1avvphi1

established that the tribunal had acted capriciousl! and

&hi"sicall! in total disre%ard of evidence "aterial to oreven decisive of the controvers!.3@

he "ost i"portant consideration for the allo&ance of theinstant petition is the opportunit! for the Court not onl! toset the de"arcation bet&een the N'RC9s +urisdiction and theDO'E9s prero%ative but also the procedure &hen the caseinvolves the funda"ental challen%e on the DO'E9sprero%ative based on lac of e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship. s e1haustivel! discussed here, the DO'E9s

prero%ative hin%es on the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship, the issue is &hich is at the ver! heart of thiscase. nd the evidence clearl! indicates private respondenthas never been petitioner9s e"plo!ee. 8ut the DO'E did notaddress, &hile the Court of ppeals %lossed over, the issue.

he pere"ptor! dis"issal of the instant petition on atechnicalit! &ould deprive the Court of the opportunit! toresolve the novel controvers!.1avvphi1

KERE


13/31

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had beenreached in consultation before the case &as assi%ned to the&riter of the opinion of the Court9s Division.

CONC"ITA CARPIO MORALES

ssociate 5usticectin% Chairperson, Second Division

C E R I < I C I O N

Pursuant to Section -:, rticle VIII of the Constitution, andthe Division Chairperson9s ttestation, it is hereb! certi#edthat the conclusions in the above Decision had beenreached in consultation before the case &as assi%ned to the&riter of the opinion of the Court9s Division.

RE!NATO S. PUNOChief 5ustice

$oo+&o+-

ctin% Chairperson.

Per Special Order No. 2-J, 5ustice eresita 5.'eonardo0De Castro is hereb! desi%nated asadditional "e"ber of the Second Division in lieu of5ustice 'eonardo . uisu"bin%, &ho is on o;cialleave

-People9s 8roadcastin% Service (8o"bo Rad!o Phils.,Inc) v. he Secretar! of the Depart"ent of 'abor andE"plo!"ent, the Re%ional Director, DO'E Re%ion VIIand 5andeleon 5ue*an, rollo, pp. :/0@: and 32,respectivel!. Penned b! ssociate 5ustice Pa"pio .

barintos, &ith ssociate 5ustices %ustin S. Di*onand Priscilla 8alta*ar0Padilla, concurrin%.

Co"plaint dated -/ Septe"ber 44:, id. at J3.

:Id. at J.

@Id. at J@.

3Id.

2Per Minutes of the -- Nove"ber 44: Su""ar!Proceedin%, DO'E records, p. @.

6Rollo, pp. J20JJ.

/DO'E Records, pp. -3-0-3.

JId. at -60-J.

-4Rollo, pp. :/0@:.

--Resolution dated 2 5une 446, id. at 32.

-Petitioner "aintains that the instant case is be!ondthe +urisdiction of the Re%ional Director becauserespondent9s clai" e1ceeds P 3,444. he ar%u"ent

"ust be struc do&n at once, as it is &ell settled,follo&in% the a"end"ent of the 'abor Code b! R..66:4 on 5une -JJ@, that the visitorial andenforce"ent po&ers of the Re%ional Director can bee1ercised even if the individual clai" e1ceeds P3,444. See llied Investi%ation 8ureaus, Inc. v.Secretar! of 'abor, 7.R. No. -442, @ Nove"ber-JJJ, :-J SCR -63, Cirineo 8o&lin% Pla*a, Inc. v.Sensin%, 7.R. No. -@236, -@ 5anuar! 443, @@/SCR -63. E108ataan Veterans Securit! %enc!, Inc.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#rnt12


14/31

v. 'a%ues"a, 7.R. No. -3:J2, 4 Nove"ber 446,3:6 SCR 446.

-:Rollo, p. -:-.

-@Co""ent, id. at -30 -@4.

-3Dated -2 Septe"ber -J/6 issued b! then DO'ESecretar!


15/31

:3Id. at 4/.

:2Id. at 46.

:6Oro*co v. Court of ppeals, 7.R. No. -3346, J

pril 443, @36 SCR 644, 64J, citations o"itted.

:/Nicol v.


16/31

he 'a&phil Pro+ect 0 rellano 'a&


17/31

Code, as a"ended b! R.. 66:42he or hisrepresentative has full authorit! under the a"endedrticle -/ to deter"ine &hether e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship e1ists.

@. rticle -/ of the 'abor Code clearl! provides thatan appeal is perfected =onl!= b! the postin% of cashor suret! bond the Deed of ssi%n"ent thepetitioner sub"itted to the DO'E is neither a cashnor a suret! bond, and the Secretar! correctl!dis"issed the petitioner9s appeal because it &as notdul! perfected. he ponencia bends over be!ond thela&9s breain% point to ad"it the petitioner9s appealdespite its in#r"it! under the clear ter"s and intentof the la&.

a. he Secretar! full! e1plained the reasons

for the non0perfection of appeal in an ori%inalOrder dated 5anuar! J, 443 and in hersubse$uent Order dated Ma! :, 443 on thepetitioner9s "otion for reconsideration. heponencia sees not onl! le%al error but %raveabuse of discretion althou%h the Secretar!follo&ed the letter and intent of the la&, asplainl! stated in the la& itself and asinterpreted b! this Court in its rulin%s.

b. Petitioners have onl! the"selves to bla"efor their lost appeal to the 'abor Secretar! for

their failure to post the re$uired bond for theperfection of their appeal.

c. he Director9s Order lapsed to #nalit! &henthe petitioner failed to perfect its appeal tothe DO'E Secretar!. he ponencia di%s deepinto this Court9s revie& po&er, eHectivel!bendin% established rules and +urisprudence,to reach and nullif! the eHects of this #rstlevel decision.

3. he Court of ppeals correctl! dis"issed thepetitioner9s petition for certiorari for lac of "erit.

a. he C cannot be &ron% &hen it refused toreco%ni*e that no %rave abuse of discretion

attended the Secretar!9s dis"issal of anappeal that &as never perfected based on theletter and intent of the la&

b. he C cannot be &ron% in its conclusionthat no violation of due process attended theDirector9s rulin%, as stated above

c. he C could not have ruled on other issuesafter it reco%ni*ed that no appeal &asperfected and no abuse of discretion attendedthe assailed decisions lie&ise, it could not

have reco%ni*ed an! le%al error on the part ofthe Secretar! for not discussin% other issuesafter reco%ni*in% that the petitioner did notperfect its appeal.

2. he petitioner9s evidence, at the "ost, establisheda doubt on the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationshipissue, &hich doubt should be resolved in favor of therespondent0&orer.6

II. 8ac%round

DO'E Re%ional O;ce No. VII conducted an inspection of thepre"ises of the petitioner resultin% in an inspectionreport>reco""endation orderin% 8o"bo Rad!o torectif!>restitute, &ithin #ve (3) da!s fro" notice, theviolation discovered durin% the inspection. Rad!o 8o"bofailed to undertae an! recti#cation so that a su""ar!investi%ation ensued &here the parties &ere re$uired tosub"it their respective position papers. Rad!o 8o"boreiterated its position, "ade durin% inspection, that the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt6bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt7bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt6bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt7b


18/31

respondent &as not an e"plo!ee he &as a dra"a talenthired on a per dra"a =participation basis.= 8oth partiespresented evidence in support of their respective positions.

DO'E Director Rodolfo M. Sabulao, in an order dated

spinner and &or si1 (2) da!s a &ee fro"/?44 .M. to 3?44 P.M., Monda! thru Saturda!. It &as therespondent &ho paid co"plainant9s salar! ever! $uincenaand &as re$uired b! the for"er to si%n pa!rolls.Not&ithstandin% the e"plo!"ent contract stipulatin% herein

co"plainant as a pro%ra" e"plo!ee, his actual dut!pertains to that of a station e"plo!ee. Moreover,respondent failed to re%ister said e"plo!"ent contract &iththe 8roadcast Media Counsel as re$uired. Ke is re$uired toobserve nor"al &orin% hours that deductions are "ade fortardiness. herefore, it is cr!stal clear that co"plainant is astation e"plo!ee rather than a pro%ra" e"plo!ee henceentitled to all bene#ts appurtenant thereto.

I& o&/ -o, + D+o 34 + -+& o4oy*4oy a+o&-4 +:& +oaa-+&/ -+a+o& a& + -4o&&+.8o"bo

Rad!o "oved for reconsideration, attachin% additionalevidence to his "otion, but the Director denied the "otion.

8o"bo Rad!o appealed to the DO'E Secretar!, "ainl!contendin% that the respondent &as not its e"plo!ee,pursuant to Rule U0 of the I"ple"entin% Rules of the 'aborCode/in relation &ith the Rules on Disposition of 'aborStandards Cases in the Re%ional O;ce.JT a44a :a---- & a& o a+ (a&3ay 27, 2005 y +A+&/ DOLE S+ay 3 +o Boo Rayo;- a3

+o 4o-+ a a- o -3+y o& a-


19/31

+urisdiction &hen it rules that the Secretar! of 'aborand E"plo!"ent has +urisdiction over the clai" ofthe private respondent even as under R.. 26-3+urisdiction over it lies &ith the N'RC, hence, clearl!,the Konorable Court ppeals co""itted errors ofla&.

. he Konorable Court of ppeals co""itted %raveabuse of discretion a"ountin% to lac or e1cess of+urisdiction &hen it upheld the Order of the Secretar!of 'abor and E"plo!"ent despite the patent lac ofdue process.

:. he Konorable Court of ppeals co""itted %raveabuse of discretion a"ountin% to lac or e1cess of+urisdiction &hen it dis"issed the appeal &ithoutdelvin% on the issues raised b! the petitioner. Its

decision dated October 2, 442 did not even rule onthe issue raised b! the petition that there is noe"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship bet&een it andrespondent 5ue*an.

@. here is no appeal or an! plain and ade$uatere"ed! in the ordinar! course of la& available to thepetition.

III. Discussion

hese discussions address the above %rounds for dissent,not necessaril! in the order posed above in li%ht of the inter0relationships of these %rounds &ith one another.

Propriet! of a Rule 23 Petition for Certiorari

he ponencia +usti#es the %rant of e1traordinar! treat"entto the petitioner9s Rule 23 petition for certiorari? (-) b!%eneral state"ents, supported b! cited +urisprudence, on&hen a Rule 23 petition for certiorari "a! be ad"itted in

lieu of the Rule @3 petition for revie& on certiorarithat is there$uired "ode of revie& fro" a rulin% of the Court ofppeals and () b! ur%in% a rela1ation of the rules in vie&of the attendant le%al and factual circu"stances of thepresent case.-4It thereafter ur%es the suspension of theapplicable rule on "ode of revie&, as follo&s?

he peculiar circu"stances of this case &arrant, as &e heldin Republic v. Court of ppeals, -46 SCR 34@, 3@, thee1ercise once "ore of our e1clusive prero%ative to suspendour o&n rules or to e1e"pt a particular case fro" itsoperation as in 1 1 1 Republic of the Philippines v. Court ofppeals, et. al., (/: SCR @3:, @6/0@/4 A-J6/B), thus? 1 1 1the rules have been drafted &ith the pri"ar! ob+ective ofenhancin% fair trials and e1peditin% +ustice. s corollar!, iftheir application and operation tend to subvert and defeatinstead of pro"ote and enhance it, their suspension is

+usti#ed.

ith these %eneral state"ents, as pre"ises,theponencia %enerall! adverts to the Re%ional Director9salle%ed irre%ular handlin% of the case and "isinterpretationof the respondent9s docu"ents the DO'E Secretar!9s failureto discuss the "erits of the case after she found the appealto have failed for failure to post the re$uired bond and thealle%ed failure of the C to e1a"ine the records and itsfocus on the discussion of due process and the +urisdiction ofthe Re%ional Director.

nder these ter"s, the ponencia hopes to open the door forthe ad"ission of the petition, thereb! %ivin% its i"pri"aturto the petitioner9s clai" that it resorted to a Rule 23 petitionbecause it had no appeal, or an! plain and ade$uatere"ed! in the ordinar! course of la&.

I sub"it that the petitioner9s &ron% "ode of appeal inco"in% to this Court cannot be %lossed over and si"pl!hidden behind %eneral state"ents "ade b! this Court in theconte1t of the uni$ue and appropriate factual settin%s of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt10bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt10b


20/31

cited cases, %enerall! applied to theponencias distortedvie& of the circu"stances of this case.

he C decision under revie& si"pl! and plainl! holds thatthe Secretar! co""itted no %rave abuse of discretion &hen

she dis"issed an appeal that &as supported b! neither acash nor a suret! bond that the la& re$uires, and that theDO'E Director did not violate the petitioner9s ri%ht to dueafter it &as %iven full and a"ple hearin% opportunities andits sub"itted evidence &ere considered and found &antin%.In fact, on its face, the petition for certiorari before the Cdoes not deserve an! "erit as it si"pl! hid behind the"a%ic for"ula [ %rave abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lacor e1cess of +urisdiction [ to +ustif! a revie& of a decisionthat has lapsed to #nalit! for the petitioner9s failure toperfect its appeal.


21/31

of e1traordinar! treat"ent to the petitioner, before +oinin%the ponencia.

he Secretar!9s Visitorial Po&ers

"a+or issue for the ponencia is the Director9sdeter"ination that e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1istedbet&een the petitioner and the respondent at the ti"e ofthe inspection. Citin% "ainl! Section :, Rule -- of the Ruleson the Disposition of 'abor Standards Cases, -@the ponenciarationali*es?

he clause =in cases &here the relationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ists= si%ni#es that the e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship "ust have e1isted even before the e"er%enceof the controvers!. N--ay, + DOLE;- 4o: o-&o+ a44y & +:o &-+a&-, &ay a# : +

4oy*4oy a+o&-4 a- a- a& #: &o -3 a+o&-4 a- > -+.

he #rst situation is cate%oricall! covered b! Sec. :, Rule --of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor StanarsCases issued b! the DO'E Secretar!. It reads?

Sec. :. Co!plaints where no e!plo"er#e!plo"eerelationship actuall" e$ists. here e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship no lon%er e1ists b! reason of the fact that it hasalread! been severed, clai"s for pa!"ent of "onetar!

bene#ts fall &ithin the e1clusive and ori%inal +urisdiction ofthe labor arbiters. ccordin%l!, if on the face of theco"plaint, it can be ascertained that e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship no lon%er e1ists, the case, &hetheracco"panied b! an alle%ation of ille%al dis"issal, shalli""ediatel! be endorsed b! the Re%ional Director to theappropriate branch of the National 'abor RelationsCo""ission (N'RC).

111 111 111

In the #rst situation, the clai" has to be referred to theN'RC because it is the N'RC &hich has +urisdiction in vie& ofthe ter"ination of the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. hesa"e procedure has to be follo&ed in the second situationsince it is the N'RC that has +urisdiction in vie& of theabsence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship bet&een theevidentiar! parties fro" the start.

Clearl! the la& accords a prero%ative to the N'RC over theclai" &hen the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship haster"inated or such relationship has not arisen at all. hereason is obvious. In the second situation especiall!, thee1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship is a "atter&hich is not easil! deter"inable fro" an ordinar!inspection, necessaril! so, because the ele"ents of such arelationship are not veri#able fro" a "ere oculare1a"ination. he intricacies and i"plications of an

e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship de"and that the level ofscrutin! should be far above the cursor! and the"echanical. hile docu"ents, particularl! docu"ents foundin the e"plo!er9s o;ce are the pri"ar! source "aterials,&hat "a! prove decisive are factors related to the histor! ofthe e"plo!er9s business operations, its current state as &ellas accepted conte"porar! practices in the industr!. Moreoften than not, the $uestion of e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship beco"es a battle of evidence, thedeter"ination of &hich should be co"prehensive andintensive and therefore best left to the speciali*ed $uasi0+udicial bod! that is the N'RC.

I+ a& a--3 +a+ + DOLE & + - o +->-+oa a& &o&+ 4o: -oo: a- +oa? a +&a+o& o + -+& o a&4oy*4oy a+o&-4. S3 4o/a+>a+&a+o&, o:>, a&&o+ o+&-> :++ >-+oa a& &o&+ 4o: +-. I&,-3 +&a+o& o + -+& o 4oy*4oy a+o&-4 - -+ 4ay o/ :++ NLRC. T- - + a&&/ o + a3- & a--


22/31

: + a+o&-4 o 4oy*4oy -+-+- & A+. 128 #.

his approach is a le%all! incorrect due "ainl! totheponenciaslac of appreciation of the e1tent of the

DO'E Secretar!9s visitorial and enforce"ent po&ers underthe 'abor Code, as a"ended, and a "is0readin% of thecurrent la& and the applicable i"ple"entin% rules. hepresent la& %ives the Secretar! or his representative theauthorit! to full! deter"ine &hether e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship e1ists onl! upon a sho&in% that it does not, isthe DO'E divested of +urisdiction over the case.

In the #rst place, the ponencia is #1ated on the applicationof the Rules on the Disposition of 'abor Standards Cases inthe Re%ional O;ces &hich cannot no& be cited and used intheir totalit! in li%ht of the a"end"ent of the rticle -/(b)

b! Republic ct No. 66:4.-3

Prior to the a"end"ent, Section-/(b) stated that [

rt. -/(b). he provisions of rticle -6 of this Code to thecontrar! not&ithstandin% and in cases &here therelationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ist, the Minister of'abor and E"plo!"ent or his dul! authori*edrepresentatives shall have the po&er to order andad"inister, after due notice and hearin%, co"pliance &iththe labor standards provisions of this Code and other laborle%islation based on the #ndin%s of labor relation o;cers orindustrial safet! en%ineers "ade in the course of inspection,

and to issue &rits of e1ecution to the appropriate authorit!for the enforce"ent of their orders, e1cept in cases &herethe e"plo!er contests the #ndin%s of the labor re%ulationo;cer and raises issues &hich cannot be resolved &ithoutconsiderin% evidentiar! "atters that are not veri#able in thenor"al course of inspection.

s a"ended, Section -/(b) no& states?

rt. -/. Visitorial and Enforce"ent Po&er. L

(b) Not&ithstandin% the provisions of rticles -J and -6 ofthis Code to the contrar!, and in cases &here therelationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ists, the Secretar!of 'abor and E"plo!"ent or his dul! authori*edrepresentatives shall have the po&er to issue co"plianceorders to %ive eHect to the labor standards provisions of thisCode and other labor le%islation based on the #ndin%s oflabor e"plo!"ent and enforce"ent o;cers or industrialsafet! en%ineers "ade in the course of inspection. %heSecretar" or his ul" authorize representatives shall issuewrits of e$ecution to the appropriate authorit" for theenforce!ent of their orers&e1cept in cases &here thee"plo!er contests the #ndin%s of the labor e"plo!"ent andenforce"ent o;cer and raises issues supported b!docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in thecourse of inspection.

n order issued b! the dul! authori*ed representative of theSecretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent under this article "a!be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a"onetar! a&ard, an appeal b! the e"plo!er "a! beperfected onl! upon the postin% of a cash or suret! bondissued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan! dul! accredited b!the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent in the a"ounte$uivalent to the "onetar! a&ard in the order appealedfro".

his a"end"ent is critical in vie&in% the Secretar!9svisitorial and enforce"ent po&ers as the! introduced ne&

features that e1panded these po&ers, thereb! aHectin% thecited Rules as &ell as the process of referrin% an inspectioncase to the N'RC.

#rst distinction bet&een the ori%inal and the a"endedrticle -/(b) is the reference to rticle -6 of the 'aborCode in the =not&ithstandin%= clause. s a"ended, rticle-J is also referred to. Read in relation &ith rticle -6, theeHect is the re"oval of the P3,444.44 ceilin% in the


23/31

Secretar!9s visitorial po&ers [ a conclusion that theponencia full! supports.

nother distinction relates to the present clause =e1cept incases &here the e"plo!er contests the #ndin%s of the labor

e"plo!"ent and enforce"ent o;cer and raises issuessupported b! docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere notconsidered in the course of inspection= (the =e1ceptin%clause=). In the ori%inal version of rticle -/(b), this clausestates [ =e1cept in cases &here the e"plo!er contests the#ndin%s of the labor re%ulation o;cer and raises issues&hich cannot be resolved &ithout considerin% evidentiar!"atters that are not veri#able in the nor"al course ofinspection.= hus, previousl!, the la& referred to "attersthat the labor re%ulation o;cer could not have ruled uponbecause the! are not veri#able in the nor"al course ofinspection. nder the present for"ulation, reference is onl!

to =docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in thecourse of inspection= used in a diHerent conte1t e1plainedbelo&. e1tuall!, the present for"ulation refers onl! todocu"entar! evidence that "i%ht or "i%ht not have beenavailable durin% inspection but &ere not considered.

he diHerence can be e1plained b! the ne& and uni$uefor"ulation of the &hole rticle -/(b). In the ori%inalprovision, the visitorial and enforce"ent po&er of theMinister of 'abor and E"plo!"ent %enerall! prevailed overthe +urisdiction over arbitration cases %ranted to 'aborrbiters and the Co""ission under rticle -6. E1cepted

fro" this rule is &hat the ori%inal and una"ended e1ceptin%clause, $uoted above, provides [i.e., &hen inspection &ouldnot su;ce because of evidentiar! "atters that have to bethreshed out at an arbitration hearin%.

he &: a& a& A+ 128#did not retain thefor"ulation of the ori%inal a- + o? 34 + o/&a>-o& &+o +:o -&+&-.In the =-+ -&+&, itreco%ni*ed the pri"ac! of the visitorial and enforce"entpo&ers of the Secretar! of 'abor over the ter"s of rticles

-J and -6. In other &ords, the Secretar! or his dele%atecan inspect &ithout bein% fettered b! the li"itations underthese provisions. he -o& -&+&is devoted &holl!to the issuance of &rits of e1ecution to enforce the issuedorders. It e1ists as an independent state"ent fro" &hat the#rst sentence states and is li"ited onl! b! the e1ception [&hen the e"plo!er cites a docu"entar! proof that &as notconsidered durin% the inspection.

hus, under the a"ended rticle -/(b), as &ritten, thepo&er of the Secretar! of 'abor or his representative toenforce the labor standards provisions of the 'abor Codeand other labor le%islations has been vastl! e1panded,bein% unli"ited b! rticles -J and -6 of the 'abor Code,provided onl! that e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship stille1ists. he e1istence of the relationship, ho&ever, is still a"atter for the Secretar! or the appropriate re%ional o;ce to

deter"ine, unfettered b! rticles -J and -6 of the 'aborCode. he "ere alle%ation [ &hether pri"a facie or not [that e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1ists, does not, b!itself, divests the Re%ional Director of +urisdiction to rule onthe case-2the Director can at least full! deter"ine &hetheror not e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1ists.

he present =e1ceptin% clause= (&hich refers onl! to theissuance of a &rit of e1ecution) su%%ests that after the labore"plo!"ent o;cer has issued its inspection rulin%, theSecretar! "a! issue a &rit to e1ecute the rulin%, unless thee"plo!er =contests the #ndin%s of the labor e"plo!"ent

o;cer and raises issues supported b! docu"entar!evidence &hich &ere not considered in the course ofinspection.= State otherwise& there is now a winow in thelaw for i!!eiate e$ecution pening appeal when thee!plo"ers ob'ection oes not relate to ocu!entar"evience that has not been raise in the course ofinspection.

hat happens to the inspection rulin% itself is %overned b!the ne1t para%raph of rticle -/(b) &hich e1pressl!


24/31

provides for an appeal to the Secretar! of 'abor, &ith there$uire"ent for the #lin% of a cash or suret! bond to perfectthe appeal. his re$uire"ent, stated &ithout distinctions or$uali#cations, should appl! to all issues, &hether on thee"plo!er0e"plo!ee issue or on the inspection #ndin%s.

necessar! $uestion that arises is the status of the currentrule i"ple"entin% rticle -/(b) as a"ended, &hich is ane1act cop! of the la& e1cept for the addition of a ne&sentence 0 =. . In such cases the Re%ional Director shallendorse the dispute to the appropriate re%ional branch ofthe National 'abor Relations Co""ission for proper action.=his rule antedates the R.. 66:4 a"end"ent but is notnecessaril! ne%ated b! the Secretar!9s e1panded po&ersbecause of the li"itation that the Secretar! or hisrepresentation has +urisdiction onl! &here an e"plo!"entrelationship e1ists. Properl! understood, it should no& be

read as a con#r"ation of the Secretar!9s e1panded po&erthat includes the full authorit! to rule on &hether e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1ists. It is onl! upon a rulin% that nosuch relationship e1ists that the Secretar! and the Directorare divested of +urisdiction to rule on the "onetar! clai".he Secretar! or the Director "ust then endorse the"onetar! clai" to the N'RC instead of dis"issin% it for lacof +urisdiction. Ko&ever, &hatever action the Director taesis a "atter that can be appealed to the Secretar! of 'aborpursuant to the second para%raph of rticle -/(b). In thepresent case, the petitioner did appeal as allo&ed b! rticle-/(b), but unfortunatel! ble& its chance to secure a revie&

on appeal before the Secretar! of 'abor as it failed to postthe cash or suret! bond that the present la& e1pressl!re$uires.

his readin% of the la& totall! invalidates the ponencia9sposition in the present case that the Re%ional Director andthe Secretar! of 'abor have no +urisdiction to issue anenforce"ent order and the case should have been turnedover to the N'RC for co"pulsor! arbitration after the

petitioner clai"ed or has sho&n pri"a facie that noe"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1isted.

he ponencia "aes a #nal desperate eHort to circu"ventthe plain i"port of Section -/(b) and its histor!

b!a44a&/ +o a& 3/&/ + 3- o + oo& a:& a&/ + DOLE S+ay;- >-+oa a&&o&+ 4o:- 3& + + S+o&. heponencia su%%ests a =functional or pra%"atic anal!sis= toascertain the +urisdictional boundaries of ad"inistrativea%encies. h! the co""on la& approach is to be used inthe Philippines9 statutor! re%i"e is pu**lin%. h! there is aneed for such an anal!sis to understand the ter"s ofSection -/(b) and the 'abor Code, is "ore so. hesu%%ested co""on la& approach is si"pl! irrelevant anddeserves no further discussion.

Petitioner


25/31

e$uivalent to the "onetar! a&ard in the order appealedfro".

he Deed of ssi%n"ent-6&as acco"panied b! a 'etter%ree"ent bet&een ueen Cit! Develop"ent 8an and the

petitioner coverin% Platinu" Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@,-/and a Cash Voucher-Jissued b! the petitionerindicatin% the a"ount of P4:,62.:4 deposited at theban. he Deed of ssi%n"ent reads?

DEED O< SSI7NMEN O< 8NT DEPOSIIK SPECI' POER O< ORNE

TNO '' MEN 8 KESE PRESENS?

hat, I, 7REMN 8. SO'NE in "! capacit! as StationMana%er of DM< Cebu Cit!, PEOP'E9S 8RODCSIN7

SERVICES, INC., a corporation dul! authori*ed and e1istin%under and b! virtue of the la&s of the Philippines, for and inconsideration of the su" of PESOS? O KNDRED KREEKOSND SEVEN KNDRED EN SIU PESOS :4>-44(Php4:,62.:4), Phil. Currenc!, CSK 8OND 7RNEEfor the "onetar! a&ard in favor to the PlaintiH in the 'aborCase doceted as 'SED Case No. RO644044:04J0CI04J-,no& pendin% appeal.

hat Respondent0ppellant do hereb! undertae to%uarantee available and su;cient funds covered b!

Platinu" Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@ ofPEOP'E9S 8RODCSIN7 SERVICES, INC., in the a"ount ofPESOS? O KNDRED KREE KOSND SEVEN KNDREDEN PESOS :4>-44 ON' (Php4:,62.:4) pa!able toPlaintiH0ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"entRe%ional O;ce VII at ueen Cit! Develop"ent 8an, Cebu8ranch, Sancian%o St., Cebu Cit!.

It is understood that the ban has the full control of Platinu"Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@ fro" and after this

date and that said su" cannot be &ithdra&n b! the PlaintiH0ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent Re%ionalO;ce VII until such ti"e that a rit of E1ecution shall beordered b! the ppellate O;ce.


26/31

O;ce on 5une -/, 44@, the petitioner "ade the follo&in%state"ent?

cco"pan!in% this PPE' are [

-. PPE' MEMORNDM

. Cash bond pursuant to the speci#cations inRESO'ION

:. Proof of pa!"ent of re$uired #lin% fee.

No cash bond &as ho&ever sub"itted, sho&in% that thepetitioner &as less than candid &hen it "ade its clai". It&as under these circu"stances [ i.e., the petitioner9sno&led%e that a cash or suret! bond is re$uired theabsence of a cash bond and "isrepresentation that a cashbond &as attached &hen there &as none [ that the DO'ESecretar! dis"issed the appeal. he C correctl! supportedthe Secretar!9s action and ruled that the Secretar! did notact &ith %rave abuse of discretion in dis"issin% the appeal.

Separatel! fro" these factual incidents are reasonsproceedin% fro" established +urisprudence as theindispensabilit! of a bond to perfect an appeal is not a ne&issue for the Court. In 8or+a Estate, et al. v. Spouses R.8allad and R. 8allad,&e ruled that [

he intention of the la&"aers to "ae the bond anindispensable re$uisite for the perfection of an appeal b!the e"plo!er is underscored b! the provision that an appeal"a! be perfected =onl! upon the postin% of a cash bond=.he &ord =onl!= "aes it perfectl! clear that the'MTERS intended the postin% of a cash or suret! bondb! the e"plo!er to be the e1clusive "eans b! &hich ane"plo!er9s appeal "a! be considered co"plete.

1 1 1

Evidentl!, the postin% of a cash or suret! bond is "andator!.nd the perfection of an appeal in the "anner and &ithinthe period prescribed b! la& is not onl! "andator! but+urisdictional. Ae"phasis suppliedB.

Interestin%l!, the sa"e adverb [ =onl!= [ that this Courtconstrued in 8or+a, is the ver! sa"e adverb that rticle-/(b) of the 'abor Code contains. hus, this rticle statesin part [ an appeal b! the e"plo!er "a! beperfectedonl! upon the postin% of a cash or suret! bondissued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan! dul! accredited b!the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent. ll thesesafe%uards &ould be for nau%ht if the ponencia9sunderstandin% of the re$uire"ents for the perfection of anappeal &ill prevail. o reiterate, the bond "ust be in cash ora suret! issued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan!, not b! an!bondin% co"pan!. he reputation alone of the bondin%

co"pan! &ill not su;ce to satisf! the la& the bondin%co"pan! "ust be accredited b! the Secretar!. =Cash,= onthe other hand, &hether in la! or its le%al si%ni#cation,"eans a su" of "one! cash bail (the sense in &hich a cashbond is used) is a su" of "one! posted b! a cri"inaldefendant to ensure his presence in court, used in place of asuret! bond and real estate.:

Ko& the afore$uoted Deed of ssi%n"ent can satisf! theabove le%al re$uire"ents re$uires an act of bendin% that%oes be!ond the intent of the la&. hat the Deed e1tends isa %uarantee usin% a su" of "one! placed &ith a ban, not

&ith the DO'E. he %uarantee is "ade b! a certain 7re"an8. Solante, described in the Deed as Station Mana%ersi%nin% for and in behalf of the petitioner, a corporation.here is no indication an!&here, ho&ever, that Mr. Solante&as authori*ed b! the 8oard of the corporation to co""itthe corporate funds as a %uarantee.@his lac of clearauthorit! is replete &ith le%al i"plications that render theDeed of ssi%n"ent less than the cash bond that it purportsto be a"on% others, these i"plications i"pose on the DO'Eadded burdens that a cash bond is desi%ned to avoid. nder
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt22bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt23bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt24bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt24bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt22bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt23bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt24b


27/31

rticle -/6/ of the Civil Code, a special po&er of attorne! isre$uired to bind a principal as %uarantor or suret!. nderSection : and :3 of the Corporation Code of thePhilippines, authorit! over corporate funds is e1ercised b!the 8oard of Directors &ho, in the absence of an appropriatedele%ation of authorit!, are the onl! ones &ho can act forand in behalf of the corporation. nder rticle -@4: of theCivil Code, a contract entered into &ithout an! le%alauthorit! or le%al representation is unenforceable. o statethe obvious, all these are stu"blin% blocs for the DO'E&hen enforce"ent a%ainst the Deed of ssi%n"ent co"es.

It is note&orth!, too, that the %uarantee is under thecondition that =said su" cannot be &ithdra&n b! thePlaintiH0ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"entRe%ional O;ce VII until such ti"e that a rit of E1ecutionshall be ordered b! the ppellate O;ce.= hat this

li"itation "eans is not at all certain. 8ut on its face, it"eans that the bond is in favor of the DO'E Re%ional O;ce,not to the O;ce to the DO'E Secretar! &here the appealhas been #led. hus, the DO'E Secretar! herself has noauthorit! to call on the %uarantee. Even Re%ional O;ce VIIcannot, until a &rit of e1ecution is ordered b! the ppellateO;ce. hat this ppellate O;ce is, is a%ain not certain andcan "ean the hi%hest appellate levels all the &a! up to thisCourt. nother uncertaint! is the ban9s co""it"ent to the%uarantee as the Deed onl! contains a =CON


28/31

%uess or in hindsi%ht control an ad"inistrative tribunal inthe e1ercise of its po&ers, even =in the interest of +ustice,=&here there is no attendant %rave abuse of discretiona"ountin% to lac or e1cess of +urisdiction. Onl! in this"anner can this Court accord due respect to theconstitutional separation of po&ers that it is dut!0bound toenforce.


29/31

so"e da!s the! &or for less than ei%ht (/) hours and onother da!s be!ond the nor"al &or hours observed b! thestation e"plo!ees and are allo&ed to enter intoe"plo!"ent contracts &ith other persons, stations,advertisin% a%encies or sponsorin% co"panies. heen%a%e"ent of pro%ra" e"plo!ees, includin% those hiredb! advertisin% a%encies or sponsorin% co"panies, shall beunder a &ritten contract specif!in%, a"on% other thin%s, thenature of the &or to be perfor"ed, rates to pa!, and thepro%ra"s in &hich the! &ill &or. he contract shall be dul!re%istered b! the station &ith the 8roadcast Media Council&ithin three (:) da!s fro" its consu""ation.=

careful perusal of the records of this case sho&ed thatco"plainant 5andeleon 5ue*an &as hired b! the respondentas a radio talent>spinner and &or si1 (2) da!s a &ee fro"/?44 .M. to 3?44 P.M., Monda! thru Saturda!. It &as the

respondent &ho paid co"plainant9s salar! ever! $uincenaand &as re$uired b! the for"er to si%n pa!rolls.Not&ithstandin% the e"plo!"ent contract stipulatin% hereinco"plainant as a pro%ra" e"plo!ee, his actual dut!pertains to that of a station e"plo!ee. Moreover,respondent failed to re%ister said e"plo!"ent contract &iththe 8roadcast Media Counsel as re$uired. Ke is re$uired toobserve nor"al &orin% hours that deductions are "ade fortardiness. herefore, it is cr!stal clear that co"plainant is astation e"plo!ee rather than a pro%ra" e"plo!ee henceentitled to all bene#ts appurtenant thereto.

In the "otion for reconsideration that follo&ed, the Directorruled as follo&s?


30/31

his &or &as si1 A2B da!s a &ee fro" /?44 .M. to 3?44 P.M.,Monda! thru Saturda! (:) he is re$uired to observe nor"al&orin% hours and deductions are "ade for tardiness (@)the respondent paid the co"plainant9s salar!ever! quincena (3) the petitioner re$uired the respondentto si%n pa!rolls (2) not&ithstandin% the e"plo!"entcontract stipulatin% herein co"plainant as a pro%ra"e"plo!ee, his actual dut! pertains to that of a statione"plo!ee and (6) the petitioner failed to re%ister therespondent9s e"plo!"ent contract &ith the 8roadcastMedia Counsel as re$uired.

hus vie&ed, the ponencia9s conclusion that the Director didnot consider the petitioner9s evidence is "isplaced. In fact,the factors the Director pointed out decisivel! sho& that ane"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1isted bet&een thepetitioner and the respondent.

Confusion bet&een the DO'E andthe N'RC in resolvin% e"plo!"entrelationship issues.

s last point that is hard to leave alone is the ponencia9sinterpretation that the standard laid do&n in the lastsentence of rticle -/ (b) of the 'abor Code that thedocu"entar! proofs be =considered in the course ofinspection= applies onl! to issues other than thefunda"ental issue of the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!eerelationship. contrar! rule accordin% to the ponencia

&ould lead to controversies on the part of labor o;cials inresolvin% the issue of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship.

hat the ponencia apparentl! refers to is that portion ofrticle -/(b) that &as a"ended b! R.. 66:4, heretoforediscussed. o reiterate &hat has been stated above, the=docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in thecourse of inspection= refers to the ob+ection that a part!"a! raise in relation &ith the issuance of a &rit of e1ecution,and does not relate to the e1tent of the visitorial and

enforce"ent po&er of the Secretar! de#ned in the #rstsentence of the rticle. hus, no &rit "a! i""ediatel! issueif such ob+ection e1ists. Rather, a full hearin% shall ensue asin this case &here the Director allo&ed the petitioner tosub"it evidence as late as the "otion for reconsiderationsta%e. fter the Director shall have ruled on all thesub"itted issues, then a &rit of e1ecution shall issue if noappeal is taen other&ise, an appeal "a! be taen to theSecretar!. nder the Rules, the perfection of an appeal holdsin abe!ance the issuance of a &rit of e1ecution or suspendsone alread! issued.2R.. 66:4 eHectivel! chan%es this ruleb! %ivin% the authorit! to issue a &rit of e1ecution unlessthe =e1ceptin% clause= "entioned above applies.

hat the e"plo!"ent relationship issue is for the Secretar!or his representative to rule upon is clear fro" the &ordin%of the -st para%raph of rticle -/(b) &hen it de#nes the

e1tent of the Secretar!9s po&er. In this de#nition ofauthorit!, the issue cannot be an!&here else but &ith theSecretar! &ho has been %ranted visitorial and enforce"entpo&er &hen an e"plo!"ent relationship e1ists. his %rant"ust be read &ith the nd para%raph of the sa"e rticlethat identi#es an appeal as the re"ed! to tae fro" aninspection decision "ade under the -st para%raph.


31/31

shall su""on the e"plo!er and thee"plo!ees>co"plainants to a su""ar! hearin% at there%ional o;ce.

1 1 1

Sec. 2. Nature of Proceedin%s. he proceedin%s shall besu""ar! and non0liti%ious in character. Sub+ect to there$uire"ents of due process, the technicalities of la& andprocedure and the rules %overnin% ad"issibilit! andsu;cienc! of evidence obtainin% in the courts of la& shallnot strictl! appl!. he re%ional director or his desi%natedrepresentative "a!, ho&ever, avail of all reasonable "eansto ascertain the facts of the controvers! speedil! andob+ectivel!, includin% the conduct of ocular inspection ande1a"ination of &ell0infor"ed persons. Substantial evidenceshall be su;cient to support a decision.

Si%ni#cantl!, the nature of the proceedin%s before theRe%ional Director is not diHerent fro" the proceedin%sbefore the 'abor rbiter. Section , Rule V of the RevisedRules of Procedure of the National 'abor RelationsCo""ission (443) provides that?

Section . Nature of Proceedin%s. he proceedin%s beforethe 'abor rbiter shall be non0liti%ious in nature. Sub+ect tothe re$uire"ents of due process, the technicalities of la&and procedure and the rules obtainin% in courts of la& shallnot strictl! appl! thereto. he 'abor rbiter "a! avail

hi"self of all reasonable "eans to ascertain the facts of thecontrovers! speedil!, includin% the ocular inspection ande1a"ination of &ell0infor"ed persons.

hus, the vie& that one tribunal has pri"ac! over anotherbecause of the nature of their proceedin%s, the $uantu" ofevidence re$uired, or their level of e1pertise, is "isplaced.Properl! understood, the structure that rticle -/(b)provides in relation &ith "onetar! clai"s &ithin ande"plo!"ent relationship, as &ell as the delineation of

po&ers bet&een the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"entand the N'RC are not at all co"plicated nor confusin%, andneed not lead to controversies on the part of labor o;cialsin resolvin% the issue of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship, asthe ponencia fears.

ARTURO D. BRIONssociate 5ustice

people's brodcating service inc. vs. sec. of labor (may 8, 2009)

Documents