Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 179652 March 6, 2012
PEOPLE'S BROADCASTNG SER!CE "BOMBO RAD#O P$LS.,
NC.%, Petitioner,
vs.
T$E SECRETAR# O& T$E DEPARTMENT O& LABOR AND
EMPLO#MENT, T$E REGONAL DRECTOR, DOLE REGON
!, a'( )ANDELEON )UE*AN, Respondents.
R E S O L ! " O N
!ELASCO, )R., J.:
"n a Petition for Certiorari under Rule #$, petitioner People%s Broadcastin&
Service, "nc. 'Bo(bo Rad)o Phils., "nc.* +uestioned the ,ecision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals 'CA* dated October -#, -..# and /une
-#, -..0, respectivel), in C.A. 1.R. CEB2SP No. ..3$$.
Private respondent /andeleon /ue4an filed a co(plaint a&ainst petitioner
5ith the ,epart(ent of Labor and E(plo)(ent ',OLE* Re&ional Office
No. 6"", Cebu Cit), for ille&al deduction, nonpa)(ent of service incentive
leave, 78th (onth pa), pre(iu( pa) for holida) and rest da) and ille&al
di(inution of benefits, dela)ed pa)(ent of 5a&es and noncovera&e of SSS,
PA12"B"1 and Philhealth.
7
After the conduct of su((ar) investi&ations,
and after the parties sub(itted their position papers, the ,OLE Re&ional
,irector found that private respondent 5as an e(plo)ee of petitioner, and
5as entitled to his (one) clai(s.
-
Petitioner sou&ht reconsideration of the
,irector%s Order, but failed. !he Actin& ,OLE Secretar) dis(issed
petitioner%s appeal on the &round that petitioner sub(itted a ,eed of
Assi&n(ent of Ban9 ,eposit instead of postin& a cash or suret) bond. :hen
the (atter 5as brou&ht before the CA, 5here petitioner clai(ed that it had
been denied due process, it 5as held that petitioner 5as accorded due
process as it had been &iven the opportunit) to be heard, and that the ,OLE
Secretar) had ;urisdiction over the (atter, as the ;urisdictional li(itation
i(posed b) Article 7-< of the Labor Code on the po5er of the ,OLE
Secretar) under Art. 7-3'b* of the Code had been repealed b) Republic Act
No. 'RA* 008..
8
"n the ,ecision of this Court, the CA ,ecision 5as reversed and set aside,
and the co(plaint a&ainst petitioner 5as dis(issed. !he dispositive portion
of the ,ecision reads as follo5s=
+$ERE&ORE, the petition is GRANTED. !he ,ecision dated -#
October -..# and the Resolution dated -# /une -..0 of the Court of
Appeals in C.A. 1.R. CEB2SP No. ..3$$ are RE!ERSED and SET
ASDE. !he Order of the then Actin& Secretar) of the ,epart(ent of Labor
and E(plo)(ent dated -0 /anuar) -..$ den)in& petitioner%s appeal, and
the Orders of the ,irector, ,OLE Re&ional Office No. 6"", dated -> Ma)
-..> and -0 ?ebruar) -..>, respectivel), are ANNULLED. !he co(plaint
a&ainst petitioner is DSMSSED.
>
!he Court found that there 5as no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship bet5een
petitioner and private respondent. "t 5as held that 5hile the ,OLE (a)
(a9e a deter(ination of the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship, this function could not be co2e@tensive 5ith the visitorial and
enforce(ent po5er provided in Art. 7-3'b* of the Labor Code, as a(ended
b) RA 008.. !he National Labor Relations Co((ission 'NLRC* 5as held
to be the pri(ar) a&enc) in deter(inin& the e@istence of an e(plo)er2
e(plo)ee relationship. !his 5as the interpretation of the Court of the clause
Ain cases 5here the relationship of e(plo)er2e(plo)ee still e@istsA in Art.
7-3'b*.
$
?ro( this ,ecision, the Public Attorne)%s Office 'PAO* filed a Motion for
Clarification of ,ecision '5ith Leave of Court*. !he PAO sou&ht to clarif)
as to 5hen the visitorial and enforce(ent po5er of the ,OLE be not
considered as co2e@tensive 5ith the po5er to deter(ine the e@istence of an
e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship.
#
"n its Co((ent,
0
the ,OLE sou&ht
clarification as 5ell, as to the e@tent of its visitorial and enforce(ent po5er
under the Labor Code, as a(ended.
!he Court treated the Motion for Clarification as a second (otion for
reconsideration, &rantin& said (otion and reinstatin& the petition.
3
"t is
apparent that there is a need to delineate the ;urisdiction of the ,OLE
Secretar) vis2B2vis that of the NLRC.
nder Art. 7-< of the Labor Code, the po5er of the ,OLE and its dul)
authori4ed hearin& officers to hear and decide an) (atter involvin& the
recover) of 5a&es and other (onetar) clai(s and benefits 5as +ualified b)
the proviso that the co(plaint not include a clai( for reinstate(ent, or that
the a&&re&ate (one) clai(s not e@ceed PhP $,.... RA 008., or an Act
?urther Stren&thenin& the 6isitorial and Enforce(ent Po5ers of the
Secretar) of Labor, did a5a) 5ith the PhP $,... li(itation, allo5in& the
,OLE Secretar) to e@ercise its visitorial and enforce(ent po5er for clai(s
be)ond PhP $,.... !he onl) +ualification to this e@panded po5er of the
,OLE 5as onl) that there still be an e@istin& e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship.
"t is conceded that if there is no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship, 5hether it
has been ter(inated or it has not e@isted fro( the start, the ,OLE has no
;urisdiction. nder Art. 7-3'b* of the Labor Code, as a(ended b) RA 008.,
the first sentence reads, ANot5ithstandin& the provisions of Articles 7-< and
-70 of this Code to the contrar), and in cases 5here the relationship of
e(plo)er2e(plo)ee still e@ists, the Secretar) of Labor and E(plo)(ent or
his dul) authori4ed representatives shall have the po5er to issue co(pliance
orders to &ive effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other
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.A "t is clear and be)ond debate that an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship (ust e@ist for the e@ercise of the visitorial and enforce(ent
po5er of the ,OLE. !he +uestion no5 arises, (a) the ,OLE (a9e a
deter(ination of 5hether or not an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship e@ists,
and if so, to 5hat e@tentC
!he first portion of the +uestion (ust be ans5ered in the affir(ative.
!he prior decision of this Court in the present case accepts such ans5er, but
places a li(itation upon the po5er of the ,OLE, that is, the deter(ination
of the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship cannot be co2
e@tensive 5ith the visitorial and enforce(ent po5er of the ,OLE. But even
in concedin& the po5er of the ,OLE to deter(ine the e@istence of an
e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship, the Court held that the deter(ination of
the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship is still pri(aril) 5ithin
the po5er of the NLRC, that an) findin& b) the ,OLE is (erel)
preli(inar).
!his conclusion (ust be revisited.
No li(itation in the la5 5as placed upon the po5er of the ,OLE to
deter(ine the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship. No
procedure 5as laid do5n 5here the ,OLE 5ould onl) (a9e a preli(inar)
findin&, that the po5er 5as pri(aril) held b) the NLRC. !he la5 did not
sa) that the ,OLE 5ould first see9 the NLRC%s deter(ination of the
e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship, or that should the
e@istence of the e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship be disputed, the ,OLE
5ould refer the (atter to the NLRC. !he ,OLE (ust have the po5er to
deter(ine 5hether or not an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship e@ists, and
fro( there to decide 5hether or not to issue co(pliance orders in
accordance 5ith Art. 7-3'b* of the Labor Code, as a(ended b) RA 008..
!he ,OLE, in deter(inin& the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship, has a read) set of &uidelines to follo5, the sa(e &uide the
courts the(selves use. !he ele(ents to deter(ine the e@istence of an
e(plo)(ent relationship are= '7* the selection and en&a&e(ent of the
e(plo)eeD '-* the pa)(ent of 5a&esD '8* the po5er of dis(issalD '>* the
e(plo)er%s po5er to control the e(plo)ee%s conduct.
<
!he use of this test is
not solel) li(ited to the NLRC. !he ,OLE Secretar), or his or her
representatives, can utili4e the sa(e test, even in the course of inspection,
(a9in& use of the sa(e evidence that 5ould have been presented before the
NLRC.
!he deter(ination of the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship
b) the ,OLE (ust be respected. !he e@panded visitorial and enforce(ent
po5er of the ,OLE &ranted b) RA 008. 5ould be rendered nu&ator) if the
alle&ed e(plo)er could, b) the si(ple e@pedient of disputin& the e(plo)er2
e(plo)ee relationship, force the referral of the (atter to the NLRC. !he
Court issued the declaration that at least a pri(a facie sho5in& of the
absence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship be (ade to oust the ,OLE
of ;urisdiction. But it is precisel) the ,OLE that 5ill be faced 5ith that
evidence, and it is the ,OLE that 5ill 5ei&h it, to see if the sa(e does
successfull) refute the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship.
"f the ,OLE (a9es a findin& that there is an e@istin& e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship, it ta9es co&ni4ance of the (atter, to the e@clusion of the
NLRC. !he ,OLE 5ould have no ;urisdiction onl) if the e(plo)er2
e(plo)ee relationship has alread) been ter(inated, or it appears, upon
revie5, that no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship e@isted in the first place.
!he Court, in li(itin& the po5er of the ,OLE, &ave the rationale that such
li(itation 5ould eli(inate the prospect of co(petin& conclusions bet5een
the ,OLE and the NLRC. !he prospect of co(petin& conclusions could
;ust as 5ell have been eli(inated b) accordin& respect to the ,OLE
findin&s, to the e@clusion of the NLRC, and this :e believe is the (ore
prudent course of action to ta9e.
!his is not to sa) that the deter(ination b) the ,OLE is be)ond +uestion or
revie5.1avvphi1 Suffice it to sa), there are ;udicial re(edies such as a
petition for certiorari under Rule #$ that (a) be availed of, should a part)
5ish to dispute the findin&s of the ,OLE.
"t (ust also be re(e(bered that the po5er of the ,OLE to deter(ine the
e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship need not necessaril) result
in an affir(ative findin&. !he ,OLE (a) 5ell (a9e the deter(ination that
no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship e@ists, thus divestin& itself of
;urisdiction over the case. "t (ust not be precluded fro( bein& able to reach
its o5n conclusions, not b) the parties, and certainl) not b) this Court.
nder Art. 7-3'b* of the Labor Code, as a(ended b) RA 008., the ,OLE
is full) e(po5ered to (a9e a deter(ination as to the e@istence of an
e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship in the e@ercise of its visitorial and
enforce(ent po5er, sub;ect to ;udicial revie5, not revie5 b) the NLRC.
!here is a vie5 that despite Art. 7-3'b* of the Labor Code, as a(ended b)
RA 008., there is still a threshold a(ount set b) Arts. 7-< and -70 of the
Labor Code 5hen (one) clai(s are involved, i.e., that if it is for PhP $,...
and belo5, the ;urisdiction is 5ith the re&ional director of the ,OLE, under
Art. 7-<, and if the a(ount involved e@ceeds PhP $,..., the ;urisdiction is
5ith the labor arbiter, under Art. -70. !he vie5 states that despite the
5ordin& of Art. 7-3'b*, this 5ould onl) appl) in the course of re&ular
inspections underta9en b) the ,OLE, as differentiated fro( cases under
Arts. 7-< and -70, 5hich ori&inate fro( co(plaints. !here are several
cases, ho5ever, 5here the Court has ruled that Art. 7-3'b* has been
a(ended to e@pand the po5ers of the ,OLE Secretar) and his dul)
authori4ed representatives b) RA 008.. "n these cases, the Court resolved
that the ,OLE had the ;urisdiction, despite the a(ount of the (one) clai(s
involved. ?urther(ore, in these cases, the inspection held b) the ,OLE
re&ional director 5as pro(pted specificall) b) a co(plaint. !herefore, the
initiation of a case throu&h a co(plaint does not divest the ,OLE Secretar)
or his dul) authori4ed representative of ;urisdiction under Art. 7-3'b*.
!o recapitulate, if a co(plaint is brou&ht before the ,OLE to &ive effect to
the labor standards provisions of the Labor Code or other labor le&islation,
and there is a findin& b) the ,OLE that there is an e@istin& e(plo)er2
e(plo)ee relationship, the ,OLE e@ercises ;urisdiction to the e@clusion of
the NLRC. "f the ,OLE finds that there is no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship, the ;urisdiction is properl) 5ith the NLRC. "f a co(plaint is
filed 5ith the ,OLE, and it is acco(panied b) a clai( for reinstate(ent,
the ;urisdiction is properl) 5ith the Labor Arbiter, under Art. -70'8* of the
Labor Code, 5hich provides that the Labor Arbiter has ori&inal and
e@clusive ;urisdiction over those cases involvin& 5a&es, rates of pa), hours
of 5or9, and other ter(s and conditions of e(plo)(ent, if acco(panied b)
a clai( for reinstate(ent. "f a co(plaint is filed 5ith the NLRC, and there
is still an e@istin& e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship, the ;urisdiction is
properl) 5ith the ,OLE. !he findin&s of the ,OLE, ho5ever, (a) still be
+uestioned throu&h a petition for certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of
Court.
"n the present case, the findin& of the ,OLE Re&ional ,irector that there
5as an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship has been sub;ected to revie5 b)
this Court, 5ith the findin& bein& that there 5as no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship bet5een petitioner and private respondent, based on the
evidence presented. Private respondent presented self2servin& alle&ations as
5ell as self2defeatin& evidence.
7.
!he findin&s of the Re&ional ,irector
5ere not based on substantial evidence, and private respondent failed to
prove the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship. !he ,OLE had
no ;urisdiction over the case, as there 5as no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship present. !hus, the dis(issal of the co(plaint a&ainst petitioner
is proper.
:EERE?ORE, the ,ecision of this Court in 1.R. No. 70<#$- is hereb)
A??"RME,, 5ith the MO,"?"CA!"ON that in the e@ercise of the ,OLE%s
visitorial and enforce(ent po5er, the Labor Secretar) or the latter%s
authori4ed representative shall have the po5er to deter(ine the e@istence of
an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship, to the e@clusion of the NLRC.
SO OR,ERE,.
PRESBTERO ). !ELASCO, )R.
Associate /ustice
:E CONCR=
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief /ustice
ANTONO T. CARPO
Associate /ustice
TERESTA ). LEONARDO,
DE CASTRO
Associate /ustice
ARTURO D. BRON
Associate /ustice
DOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate /ustice
LUCAS P. BERSAMN
Associate /ustice
'On official leave*
MARANO C. DEL
CASTLLO
F
Associate /ustice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate /ustice
MARTN S. !LLARAMA,
)R.
Associate /ustice
)OSE PORTUGAL PERE*
Associate /ustice
)OSE CATRAL MENDO*A
Associate /ustice
MARA LOURDES P. A. BEN!ENDO L. RE#ES
SERENO
Associate /ustice
Associate /ustice
ESTELA M. PERLAS,BERNABE
Associate /ustice
C E R ! " ? " C A ! " O N
Pursuant to Section 78, Article 6""" of the Constitution, it is hereb) certified
that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case 5as assi&ned to the 5riter of the opinion of the
Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief /ustice
&oo-'o-./
F
On official leave.
7
People%s Broadcastin& 'Bo(bo Rad)o Phils., "nc.* v. Secretar) of
the ,epart(ent of Labor and E(plo)(ent, 1.R. No. 70<#$-, Ma)
3, -..<, $30 SCRA 0->, 083.
-
"d. at 08<.
8
"d. at 0>..
>
"d. at 0#8.
$
"d. at 0>>20>$.
#
Rollo, p. 8-<.
0
"d. at 88$.
3
Resolution, People%s Broadcastin& 'Bo(bo Rad)o Phils., "nc.* v.
Secretar) of the ,epart(ent of Labor and E(plo)(ent, 1.R. No.
70<#$-, /anuar) ->, -.77.
<
CRC A&ricultural !radin& v. National Labor Relations
Co((ission, 1.R. No. 700##>, ,ece(ber -8, -..<, #.< SCRA
783, 7>#.
7.
People%s Broadcastin& 'Bo(bo Rad)o Phils., "nc.* v. Secretar)
of the ,epart(ent of Labor and E(plo)(ent, supra note 7, at 0#7.
!he La5phil Pro;ect 2 Arellano La5 ?oundation
CONCURRNG OPNON
'in the Result*
BRON, J.:
" concur in the result in affir(in& 5ith (odification the Court%s ,ecision of
Ma) 3, -..<. !his ,ecision ori&inall) dis(issed respondent /andeleon
/ue4an%s (one) clai(s a&ainst the petitioner People%s Broadcastin& Service
'Bo(bo Rad)o Phils., "nc.*. !he present Resolution still affir(s the rulin&
in favor of the petitioner, but (ore i(portantl) to (e, it reco&ni4es the
validit) of the ,epart(ent of Labor and E(plo)(ent%s ',OLE%s* plenar)
po5er under Article 7-3'b* of the Labor Code, as a(ended b) Republic Act
No. 008., includin& its po5er to deter(ine the e@istence of e(plo)er2
e(plo)ee relationship in the e@ercise of its Article 7-3'b* po5ers.
Bac9&round
!he case arose 5hen the ,OLE Re&ional Office No. 6"" conducted an
inspection of Bo(bo Rad)o%s pre(ises in response to /ue4an%s (one)
clai(s a&ainst the broadcastin& co(pan), resultin& in an order for Bo(bo
Rad)o to rectif)Grestitute the labor standards violations discovered durin&
the inspection. Bo(bo Rad)o failed to (a9e an) rectification or restitution,
pro(ptin& the ,OLE to conduct a su((ar) investi&ation. Bo(bo Rad)o
reiterated its position, (ade durin& the inspection, that /ue4an 5as not its
e(plo)ee. Both parties sub(itted evidence to support their respective
positions.
,OLE ,irector Rodolfo M. Sabulao found /ue4an to be an e(plo)ee of
Bo(bo Rad)o. Conse+uentl), ,irector Sabulao ordered Bo(bo Rad)o to
pa) /ue4an P-.8,0-#.8. representin& his de(anded (one) clai(s. Bo(bo
Rad)o (oved for reconsideration and sub(itted additional evidence, but
,irector Sabulao denied the (otion. Bo(bo Rad)o then appealed to the
,OLE Secretar), insistin& that /ue4an 5as not its e(plo)ee as he 5as a
dra(a talent hired on a per dra(a basis. !he Actin& ,OLE Secretar)
dis(issed the appeal for non2perfection due to Bo(bo Rad)o%s failure to
put a cash or suret) bond, as re+uired b) Article 7-3'b* of the Labor Code.
Bo(bo Rad)o 5ent to the Court of Appeals 'CA* throu&h a petition for
certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of Court. !he CA dis(issed the
petition for lac9 of (erit. Bo(bo Rad)o then sou&ht relief fro( this Court,
li9e5ise throu&h a Rule #$ petition, contendin& that the CA co((itted
&rave abuse of discretion in dis(issin& the petition. "t ;ustified its recourse
to a petition for certiorari instead of a Rule >$ appeal b) clai(in& that there
5as no appeal or an) plain and ade+uate re(ed) available to it in the
ordinar) course of la5.
On Ma) 3, -..<, the Court%s Second ,ivision rendered a ,ecision
reversin& the CA rulin&s and dis(issin& /ue4an%s co(plaint. "t revie5ed the
evidence and found that there 5as no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship
bet5een /ue4an and Bo(bo Rad)o. !he Court overruled the CA%s
reco&nition of the ,OLE%s po5er to deter(ine the e@istence of e(plo)er2
e(plo)ee relationship in a labor standards case under Article 7-3'b* of the
Labor Code. "t stressed that the po5er to deter(ine the e@istence of
e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship is pri(aril) lod&ed 5ith the National
Labor Relations Co((ission 'NLRC* based on the clause Ain cases 5here
the relationship of e(plo)er2e(plo)ee still e@istsA in Article 7-3'b*.
!he ,issent
!he Ma) 3, -..< Court ,ecision 5as not unani(ous. " 5rote a ,issent and
5as ;oined b) /ustice Conchita Carpio Morales. " too9 stron& e@ception to
the Court%s ,ecision for=
7. ta9in& co&ni4ance of Bo(bo Rad)o%s Rule #$ petition for
certiorari despite the fact that a Rule >$ appeal 'petition for revie5
on certiorari* 5as available to the co(pan) and 5ould have been
the proper recourse since errors of la5 a&ainst the CA 5ere raisedD
-. allo5in& a ,eed of Assi&n(ent of Ban9 ,eposits as a substitute
for a cash or suret) bond in perfectin& an appeal to the Labor
Secretar), in violation of Article 7-3'b* of the Labor Code 5hich
re+uires onl) a cash or suret) bondD
8. re2e@a(inin& the evidence and findin& that there 5as no
e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship bet5een /ue4an and Bo(bo
Rad)o, thereb) reversin& the ,OLE Re&ional ,irector%s findin&s
5hich had alread) lapsed into finalit) in vie5 of the non2perfection
of the appealD
>. holdin& that 5hile the Re&ional ,irector and the ,OLE
Secretar) (a) preli(inaril) deter(ine the e@istence of an
e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship in a labor standards case, the) can
be divested of ;urisdiction over the issue b) a (ere pri(a facie
sho5in& of an absence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship.
!he Public Attorne)%s Office 'PAO* (oved, 5ith leave of court, to clarif)
the ,ecision on the +uestion of 5hen the visitorial and enforce(ent po5er
of the ,OLE can be considered co2e@tensive or not co2e@tensive 5ith the
po5er to deter(ine the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship.
!he ,OLE, in its Co((ent, also sou&ht to clarif) the e@tent of its visitorial
and enforce(ent po5er under the Labor Code.
!he Court, treatin& the Motion for Clarification as a Second Motion for
Reconsideration, &ranted the (otion and reinstated the petition.
7
!he Court%s Rulin&
"n a reversal of position, the present Resolution no5 reco&ni4es that the
deter(ination of the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship b) the
,OLE, in the e@ercise of its visitorial and enforce(ent po5er under Article
7-3'b* of the Labor Code, is entitled to full respect and (ust be full)
supported. "t cate&oricall) states=
No li(itation in the la5 5as placed upon the po5er of the ,OLE to
deter(ine the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship. No
procedure 5as laid do5n 5here the ,OLE 5ould onl) (a9e a preli(inar)
findin&, that the po5er 5as pri(aril) held b) the NLRC. !he la5 did not
sa) that the ,OLE 5ould first see9 the NLRC%s deter(ination of the
e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship, or that should the
e@istence of the e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship be disputed, the ,OLE
5ould refer the (atter to the NLRC. !he ,OLE (ust have the po5er to
deter(ine 5hether or not an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship e@ists, and
fro( there to decide 5hether or not to issue co(pliance orders in
accordance 5ith Art. 7-3'b* of the Labor Code, as a(ended b) RA 008..
-

!he deter(ination of the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship
b) the ,OLE (ust be respected. !he e@panded visitorial and enforce(ent
po5er of the ,OLE &ranted b) RA 008. 5ould be rendered nu&ator) if the
alle&ed e(plo)er could, b) the si(ple e@pedient of disputin& the e(plo)er2
e(plo)ee relationship, force the referral of the (atter to the NLRC. !he
Court issued the declaration that at least a pri(a facie sho5in& of the
absence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship be (ade to oust the ,OLE
of ;urisdiction. But it is precisel) the ,OLE that 5ill be faced 5ith that
evidence, and it is the ,OLE that 5ill 5ei&h it, to see if the sa(e does
successfull) refute the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship.
8

!his is not to sa) that the deter(ination b) the ,OLE is be)ond +uestion or
revie5. Suffice it to sa), there are ;udicial re(edies such as a petition for
certiorari under Rule #$ that (a) be availed of, should a part) 5ish to
dispute the findin&s of the ,OLE.
>
'underscorin& ours*
"n short, the Court no5 reco&ni4es that the ,OLE has the full po5er to
deter(ine the e@istence of an e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship in cases
brou&ht to it under Article 7-3'b* of the Labor Code. !his po5er is parallel
and not subordinate to that of the NLRC.
Our present rulin& on the authorit) of the ,OLE 5ith respect to Article
7-3'b* of the Labor Code is, to () (ind, a ver) positive develop(ent that
cannot but benefit our 5or9in& (asses, the vast (a;orit) of 5ho( Aare not
or&ani4ed and, therefore, outside the protective (antle of collective
bar&ainin&.A
$
"t should be 5elco(e to the ,OLE, too, as it 5ill &reatl) boost its visitorial
and enforce(ent po5er, and serve as an invaluable tool in its +uest to
ensure that 5or9ers en;o) (ini(u( ter(s and conditions of e(plo)(ent.
!he ,OLE%s labor inspection pro&ra( can no5 proceed 5ithout bein&
sidetrac9ed b) unscrupulous e(plo)ers 5ho could, as the Resolution
ac9no5led&es, render nu&ator) the Ae@panded visitorial and enforce(ent
po5er of the ,OLE &ranted b) RA 008. @@@@ b) the si(ple e@pedient of
disputin& the e(plo)er2e(plo)ee relationship HandI force the referral of the
(atter to the NLRC.A
#
But our Resolution does not full) &o the ,OLE%s 5a). !he Court, at the
sa(e ti(e, confir(s its previous findin& that no e(plo)er2e(plo)ee
relationship e@ists bet5een /ue4an and Bo(bo Rad)o based on the
evidence presented,
0
and that a ,eed of Assi&n(ent of Ban9 ,eposits can
be a substitute for a cash or suret) bond in perfectin& an appeal to the Labor
Secretar).
" continue to entertain stron& reservations a&ainst the validit) of these
rulin&s, particularl) the rulin& on the Court%s acceptance of a ,eed of
Assi&n(ent of Ban9 ,eposits to perfect an appeal to the Labor Secretar)D
this (ode directl) contravenes the e@press ter(s of Article 7-3'b* of the
Labor Code 5hich re+uires onl) a cash or suret) bond. " do hope that the
Court 5ill consider this rulin& an isolated one applicable onl) to the strict
facts obtainin& in the present case as this is a step bac95ard in the ,OLE%s
bid for an orderl) and efficient deliver) of labor ;ustice.
"n li&ht of these reservations, " cannot full) concur 5ith the present
Resolution and (ust onl) Aconcur in the result.A
ARTURO D. BRON
Associate /ustice