Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME 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 AND
EMPLO!MENT, T"E REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE
REGION %II, a&' (ANDELEON (UE)AN, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
he present controvers! concerns a "atter of #rst
i"pression, re$uirin% as it does the deter"ination of the
de"arcation line bet&een the prero%ative of the
Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent (DO'E) Secretar! and
his dul! authori*ed representatives, on the one hand, and
the +urisdiction of the National 'abor Relations Co""ission,
on the other, under ,rticle -./ (b) of the 'abor Code in an
instance &here the e"plo!er has challen%ed the +urisdiction
of the DO'E at the ver! #rst level on the %round that no
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship ever e1isted bet&een the
parties.
I.
he instant petition for certiorari under Rule 23 assails the
decision and the resolution of the Court of ,ppeals dated .2
October .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 People9s
8roadcastin% Service, Inc. (8o"bo Rad!o Phils., Inc)
(petitioner) for ille%al deduction, non0pa!"ent of service
incentive leave, -:th "onth pa!, pre"iu" pa! for holida!
and rest da! and ille%al di"inution of bene#ts, dela!ed
pa!"ent of &a%es and non0covera%e of SSS, P,70I8I7 and
Philhealth before the Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
(DO'E) Re%ional O;ce No. VII, Cebu Cit!.
.
On the basis of
the co"plaint, the DO'E conducted a plant level inspection
on .: Septe"ber .44:. In the Inspection Report <or",
:
the
'abor Inspector &rote under the headin%
=<indin%s>Reco""endations= =non0di"inution of bene#ts=
and =Note? Respondent den! e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship &ith the co"plainant0 see Notice of Inspection
results.= In the Notice of Inspection Results
@
also bearin% the
date .: Septe"ber .44:, the 'abor Inspector "ade the
follo&in% notations?
Mana%e"ent representative infor"ed that co"plainant is a
dra"a talent hired on a per dra"a = participation basis=
hence no e"plo!er0e"plo!eeship AsicB e1isted bet&een
the". ,s proof of this, "ana%e"ent presented photocopies
of cash vouchers, billin% state"ent, e"plo!"ents of speci#c
undertaCin% (a contract bet&een the talent director D the
co"plainant), su""ar! of billin% of dra"a production etc.
he! ("%t.) has AsicB not control of the talent if he ventures
into another contract &> other broadcastin% industries.
On the other hand, co"plainant 5ue*an9s alle%ed violation of
non0di"inution of bene#ts is co"puted as follo&s?
E P .,444>-3 da!s F -.3 "os G P 2,444
(,u%ust ->4: to Sept -3>4:)
Note? Reco""end for su""ar! investi%ation or &hatever
action dee" proper.
3
Petitioner &as re$uired to rectif!>restitute the violations
&ithin #ve (3) da!s fro" receipt. No recti#cation &as
eHected b! petitionerI thus, su""ar! investi%ations &ere
conducted, &ith the parties eventuall! ordered to sub"it
their respective position papers.
2
In his Order dated .6 <ebruar! .44@,
6
DO'E Re%ional
Director ,tt!. Rodolfo M. Sabulao (Re%ional Director) ruled
that respondent is an e"plo!ee of petitioner, and that the
for"er is entitled to his "one! clai"s a"ountin%
toP.4:,6.2.:4. Petitioner sou%ht reconsideration of the
Order, clai"in% that the Re%ional Director %ave credence to
the docu"ents oHered b! respondent &ithout e1a"inin% the
ori%inals, but at the sa"e ti"e he "issed or failed to
consider petitioner9s evidence. Petitioner9s "otion for
reconsideration &as denied.
/
On appeal to the DO'E
Secretar!, petitioner denied once "ore the e1istence of
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. In its Order dated .6
5anuar! .443, the ,ctin% DO'E Secretar! dis"issed the
appeal on the %round that petitioner did not post a cash or
suret! bond and instead sub"itted a Deed of ,ssi%n"ent of
8anC Deposit.
J
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of ,ppeals,
clai"in% that it &as denied due process &hen the DO'E
Secretar! disre%arded the evidence it presented and failed
to %ive it the opportunit! to refute the clai"s of respondent.
Petitioner "aintained that there is no e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship had ever e1isted bet&een it and respondent
because it &as the dra"a directors and producers &ho paid,
supervised and disciplined respondent. It also added that
the case &as be!ond the +urisdiction of the DO'E and should
have been considered b! the labor arbiter because
respondent9s clai" e1ceeded P3,444.44.
he Court of ,ppeals held that petitioner &as not deprived
of due process as the essence thereof is onl! an opportunit!
to be heard, &hich petitioner had &hen it #led a "otion for
reconsideration &ith the DO'E Secretar!. It further ruled that
the latter had the po&er to order and enforce co"pliance
&ith labor standard la&s irrespective of the a"ount of
individual clai"s because the li"itation i"posed b! ,rticle
.J of the 'abor Code had been repealed b! Republic ,ct No.
66:4.
-4
Petitioner sou%ht reconsideration of the decision but
its "otion &as denied.
--
8efore this Court, petitioner ar%ues that the National 'abor
Relations Co""ission (N'RC), and not the DO'E Secretar!,
has +urisdiction over respondent9s clai", in vie& of ,rticles
.-6 and -./ of the 'abor Code.
-.
It adds that the Court of
,ppeals co""itted %rave abuse of discretion &hen it
dis"issed petitioner9s appeal &ithout delvin% on the issues
raised therein, particularl! the clai" that no e"plo!er0
e"plo!ee relationship had ever e1isted bet&een petitioner
and respondent. <inall!, petitioner avers that there is no
appeal, or an! plain, speed! and ade$uate re"ed! in the
ordinar! course of la& available to it.
On the other hand, respondent posits that the Court of
,ppeals did not abuse its discretion. Ke invoCes Republic ,ct
No. 66:4, &hich =re"oves the +urisdiction of the Secretar! of
'abor and E"plo!"ent or his dul! authori*ed
representatives, fro" the eHects of the restrictive provisions
of ,rticle -.J and .-6 of the 'abor Code, re%ardin% the
con#ne"ent of +urisdiction based on the a"ount of
clai"s.=
-:
Respondent also clai"s that petitioner &as not
denied due process since even &hen the case &as &ith the
Re%ional Director, a hearin% &as conducted and pieces of
evidence &ere presented. Respondent stands b! the
propriet! of the Court of ,ppeals9 rulin% that there e1ists an
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship bet&een hi" and
petitioner. <inall!, respondent ar%ues that the instant
petition for certiorari is a &ron% "ode of appeal considerin%
that petitioner had earlier #led a Petition for Certiorari,
Manda"us and Prohibition &ith the Court of ,ppealsI
petitioner, instead, should have #led a Petition for Revie&.
-@
II.
he si%ni#cance of this case "a! be reduced to one si"ple
$uestionLdoes the Secretar! of 'abor have the po&er to
deter"ine the e1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationshipM
o resolve this pivotal issue, one "ust looC into the e1tent of
the visitorial and enforce"ent po&er of the DO'E found in
,rticle -./ (b) of the 'abor Code, as a"ended b! Republic
,ct 66:4. It reads?
,rticle -./ (b) Not&ithstandin% the provisions of ,rticles -.J
and .-6 of this Code to the contrar!, and in cases &here the
relationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ists, the Secretar!
of 'abor and E"plo!"ent or his dul! authori*ed
representatives shall have the po&er to issue co"pliance
orders to %ive eHect to the labor standards provisions of this
Code and other labor le%islation based on the #ndin%s of
labor e"plo!"ent and enforce"ent o;cers or industrial
safet! en%ineers "ade in the course of inspection. he
Secretar! or his dul! authori*ed representative shall issue
&rits of e1ecution to the appropriate authorit! for the
enforce"ent of their orders, e1cept in cases &here the
e"plo!er contests the #ndin%s of the labor e"plo!"ent and
enforce"ent o;cer and raises issues supported b!
docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in the
course of inspection. (e"phasis supplied)
1 1 1
he provision is $uite e1plicit that the visitorial and
enforce"ent po&er of the DO'E co"es into pla! onl! =in
cases &hen the relationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still
e1ists.= It also underscores the avo&ed ob+ective underl!in%
the %rant of po&er to the DO'E &hich is =to %ive eHect to
the labor standard provision of this Code and other labor
le%islation.= Of course, a person9s entitle"ent to labor
standard bene#ts under the labor la&s presupposes the
e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship in the #rst
place.
he clause =in cases &here the relationship of e"plo!er0
e"plo!ee still e1ists= si%ni#es that the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship "ust have e1isted even before the e"er%ence
of the controvers!. Necessaril!, the DO'E9s po&er does not
appl! in t&o instances, na"el!? (a) &here the e"plo!er0
e"plo!ee relationship has ceasedI and (b) &here no such
relationship has ever e1isted.
he #rst situation is cate%oricall! covered b! Sec. :, Rule --
of the Rules on the Disposition of 'abor Standards
Cases
-3
issued b! the DO'E Secretar!. It reads?
Rule II MONEN C',IMS ,RISIN7 <ROM COMP',IN>ROOINE
INSPECION
Sec. :. Co"plaints &here no e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship actuall! e1ists. Phere e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship no lon%er e1ists b! reason of the fact that it has
alread! been severed, clai"s for pa!"ent of "onetar!
bene#ts fall &ithin the e1clusive and ori%inal +urisdiction of
the labor arbiters. ,ccordin%l!, if on the face of the
co"plaint, it can be ascertained that e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship no lon%er e1ists, the case, &hether
acco"panied b! an alle%ation of ille%al dis"issal, shall
i""ediatel! be endorsed b! the Re%ional Director to the
appropriate branch of the National 'abor Relations
Co""ission (N'RC).
In the recent case of 8a! Kaven, Inc. v. ,buan,
-2
this Court
reco%ni*ed the #rst situation and accordin%l! ruled that a
co"plainant9s alle%ation of his ille%al dis"issal had deprived
the DO'E of +urisdiction as per ,rticle .-6 of the 'abor
Code.
-6
In the #rst situation, the clai" has to be referred to the
N'RC because it is the N'RC &hich has +urisdiction in vie& of
the ter"ination of the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. he
sa"e procedure has to be follo&ed in the second situation
since it is the N'RC that has +urisdiction in vie& of the
absence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship bet&een the
evidentiar! parties fro" the start.
Clearl! the la& accords a prero%ative to the N'RC over the
clai" &hen the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship has
ter"inated or such relationship has not arisen at all. he
reason is obvious. In the second situation especiall!, the
e1istence 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 a
relationship are not veri#able fro" a "ere ocular
e1a"ination. he intricacies and i"plications of an
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship de"and that the level of
scrutin! should be far above the cursor! and the
"echanical. Phile docu"ents, particularl! docu"ents found
in the e"plo!er9s
o;ce are the pri"ar! source "aterials, &hat "a! prove
decisive are factors related to the histor! of the e"plo!er9s
business operations, its current state as &ell as accepted
conte"porar! practices in the industr!. More often than not,
the $uestion of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship beco"es a
battle of evidence, the deter"ination of &hich should be
co"prehensive and intensive and therefore best left to the
speciali*ed $uasi0+udicial bod! that is the N'RC.
It can be assu"ed that the DO'E in the e1ercise of its
visitorial and enforce"ent po&er so"eho& has to "aCe a
deter"ination of the e1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship. Such prero%atival deter"ination, ho&ever,
cannot be coe1tensive &ith the visitorial and enforce"ent
po&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. he
deter"ination of the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship is still pri"aril! lod%ed &ith the N'RC. his is
the "eanin% of the clause =in cases &here the relationship
of 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 $uestions "ust be resolved? (-) Does
the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship still e1ist, or
alternativel!, &as there ever an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship to speaC ofI and (.) ,re there violations of the
'abor Code or of an! labor la&M
he e1istence of an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship is a
statutor! prere$uisite to and a li"itation on the po&er of the
Secretar! of 'abor, one &hich the le%islative branch is
entitled to i"pose. he rationale underl!in% this li"itation is
to eli"inate the prospect of co"petin% conclusions of the
Secretar! of 'abor and the N'RC, on a "atter frau%ht &ith
$uestions of fact and la&, &hich is best resolved b! the
$uasi0+udicial bod!, &hich is the NR'C, rather than an
ad"inistrative o;cial of the e1ecutive branch of the
%overn"ent. If the Secretar! of 'abor proceeds to e1ercise
his visitorial and enforce"ent po&ers absent the #rst
re$uisite, as the dissent proposes, his o;ce confers
+urisdiction on itself &hich it cannot other&ise ac$uire.
he approach su%%ested b! the dissent is fro&ned upon b!
co""on la&. o &it?
AIBt is a %eneral rule, that no court of li"ited +urisdiction can
%ive itself +urisdiction b! a &ron% decision on a point
collateral to the "erits of the case upon &hich the li"it to
its +urisdiction dependsI and ho&ever its decision "a! be
#nal on all particulars, "aCin% up to%ether that sub+ect
"atter &hich, if true, is &ithin its +urisdiction, and ho&ever
necessar! in "an! cases it "a! be for it to "aCe a
preli"inar! in$uir!, &hether so"e collateral "atter be or be
not &ithin the li"its, !et, upon this preli"inar! $uestion, its
decision "ust al&a!s be open to in$uir! in the superior
court.
-/
, "ore liberal interpretative "ode, =pra%"atic or functional
anal!sis,= has also e"er%ed in ascertainin% the +urisdictional
boundaries of ad"inistrative a%encies &hose +urisdiction is
established b! statute. Onder this approach, the Court
e1a"ines the intended function of the tribunal and decides
&hether a particular provision falls &ithin or outside that
function, rather than "aCin% the provision itself the
deter"inin% centerpiece of the anal!sis.
-J
Net even under
this "ore e1pansive approach, the dissent fails.
, readin% of ,rt. -./ of the 'abor Code reveals that the
Secretar! of 'abor or his authori*ed representatives &as
%ranted visitorial and enforce"ent po&ers for the purpose
of deter"inin% violations of, and enforcin%, the 'abor Code
and an! labor la&, &a%e order, or rules and re%ulations
issued pursuant thereto. Necessaril!, the actual e1istence of
an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship aHects the co"ple1ion
of the putative #ndin%s that the Secretar! of 'abor "a!
deter"ine, since e"plo!ees are entitled to a diHerent set of
ri%hts under the 'abor Code fro" the e"plo!er as opposed
to non0e"plo!ees. ,"on% these diHerentiated ri%hts are
those accorded b! the =labor standards= provisions of the
'abor Code, &hich the Secretar! of 'abor is "andated to
enforce. 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 labor
standards &ith respect to the non0e"plo!ees is
$uestionable.
his decision should not be considered as placin% an undue
burden on the Secretar! of 'abor in the e1ercise of visitorial
and enforce"ent po&ers, nor seen as an unprecedented
di"inution of the sa"e, but rather a reco%nition of the
statutor! li"itations thereon. , "ere assertion of absence of
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship does not deprive the DO'E
of +urisdiction over the clai" under ,rticle -./ of the 'abor
Code. ,t least a pri"a facie sho&in% of such absence of
relationship, as in this case, is needed to preclude the DO'E
fro" the e1ercise of its po&er. he Secretar! of 'abor &ould
not have been precluded fro" e1ercisin% the po&ers under
,rticle -./ (b) over petitioner if another person &ith better0
%rounded clai" of e"plo!"ent than that &hich respondent
had. Respondent, especiall! if he &ere an e"plo!ee, could
have ver! &ell en+oined other e"plo!ees to co"plain &ith
the DO'E, and, at the sa"e ti"e, petitioner could ill0aHord
to disclai" an e"plo!"ent relationship &ith all of the
people under its ae%is.
Pithout a doubt, petitioner, since the inception of this case
had been consistent in "aintainin% that respondent is not
its e"plo!ee. Certainl!, a preli"inar! deter"ination, based
on the evidence oHered, and noted b! the 'abor Inspector
durin% the inspection as &ell as sub"itted durin% the
proceedin%s before the Re%ional Director puts in %enuine
doubt the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship.
<ro" that point on, the prudent recourse on the part of the
DO'E should have been to refer respondent to the N'RC for
the proper dispensation of his clai"s. <urther"ore, as
discussed earlier, even the evidence relied on b! the
Re%ional Director in his order are "ere self0servin%
declarations of respondent, and hence cannot be relied upon
as proof of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship.
III.
,side fro" lacC of +urisdiction, there is another co%ent
reason to to set aside the Re%ional Director9s .6 <ebruar!
.44@ Order. , careful stud! of the case reveals that the said
Order, &hich found respondent as an e"plo!ee of petitioner
and directed the pa!"ent of respondent9s "one! clai"s, is
not supported b! substantial evidence, and &as even "ade
in disre%ard of the evidence on record.
It is not enou%h that the evidence be si"pl! considered. he
standard is substantial evidence as in all other $uasi0+udicial
a%encies. he standard e"plo!ed in the last sentence of
,rticle -./(b) of the 'abor Code that the docu"entar!
proofs be =considered in the course of inspection= does not
appl!. It applies onl! to issues other than the funda"ental
issue of e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. ,
contrar! rule &ould lead to controversies on the part of
labor o;cials in resolvin% the issue of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship. he onset of arbitrariness is the advent of
denial 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 respect
and even #nalit!. o be sure, the sa"e #ndin%s should be
supported b! substantial evidence fro" &hich the said
tribunals can "aCe its o&n independent evaluation of the
facts. 'iCe&ise, it "ust not be rendered &ith %rave abuse of
discretionI other&ise, this Court &ill not uphold the
tribunals9 conclusion.
.4
In the sa"e "anner, this Court &ill
not 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 is
sho&in% of fraud or error of la&.
.-
,t the onset, it is the Court9s considered vie& that the
e1istence of e"plo!er0 e"plo!ee relationship could have
been easil! resolved, or at least pri"a facie deter"ined b!
the labor inspector, durin% the inspection b! looCin% at the
records of petitioner &hich can be found in the &orC
pre"ises. Nevertheless, even if the labor inspector had
noted petitioner9s "anifestation and docu"ents in the
Notice of Inspection Results, it is clear that he did not %ive
"uch credence to said evidence, as he did not #nd the need
to investi%ate the "atter further. Considerin% that the
docu"ents sho&n b! petitioner, na"el!? cash vouchers,
checCs and state"ents of account, su""ar! billin%s
evidencin% pa!"ent to the alle%ed real e"plo!er of
respondent, letter0contracts deno"inated as =E"plo!"ent
for a Speci#c OndertaCin%,= pri"a facie ne%ate the
e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship, the labor
inspector could have e1erted a bit "ore eHort and looCed
into petitioner9s pa!roll, for e1a"ple, or its roll of
e"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 &orC is bein% undertaCen
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! labor
la&, &a%e order or rules and re%ulations pursuant
thereto.=
..
Despite these far0reachin% po&ers of labor
re%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 to
its dis"a! that even the Re%ional Director turned a blind
e!e to the evidence presented b! petitioner and relied
instead on the self0servin% clai"s of respondent.
In his position paper, respondent clai"ed that he &as hired
b! petitioner in Septe"ber -JJ2 as a radio talent>spinner,
&orCin% fro" /?44 a" until 3 p."., si1 da!s a &eeC, on a
%ross rate of P24.44 per script, earnin% an avera%e
of 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!edI
that he &as not %iven an! service incentive leave or its
"onetar! co""utation, or his -:th "onth pa!I 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"ber
of 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 he
could barel! live on. ,nent the clai" of petitioner that no
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship ever e1isted, respondent
ar%ued that that he &as hired b! petitioner, his &a%es &ere
paid under the pa!roll of the latter, he &as under the control
of petitioner and its a%ents, and it &as petitioner &ho had
the po&er to dis"iss hi" fro" his e"plo!"ent.
.:
In support
of his position paper, respondent attached a photocop! of
an identi#cation card purportedl! issued b! petitioner,
bearin% respondent9s picture and na"e &ith the desi%nation
=Spinner=I at the bacC of the I.D., the follo&in% is &ritten? =
his certi#es that the card holder is a dul! ,uthori*ed MEDI,
Representative of 8OM8O R,DNO PKI'IPPINES Q KE NO.-
Radio Net&orC in the Countr! RRR8,S, R,DNO
8OM8ORRR=
.@
Respondent liCe&ise included a Certi#cation
&hich reads?
his is to certif! that MR. 5,NDE'EON 5OES,N is a pro%ra"
e"plo!ee of PEOP'E9S 8RO,DC,SIN7 SERVICES, INC.
(DNM<0 8o"bo Rad!o Cebu) since -JJ4 up to the present.
<urtherl! certi#es that Mr. 5ue*an is receivin% a "onthl!
salar! of <I<EEN KOOS,ND (P-3,444.44) PESOS.
his certi#cation is issued upon the re$uest of the above
stated na"e to substantiate loan re$uire"ent.
7iven this -/th da! of ,pril .444, Cebu Cit! , Philippines.
(si%ned)
7REM,N 8. SO',NE
Station Mana%er
On the other hand, petitioner "aintained in its position
paper that respondent had never been its e"plo!ee.
,ttached as anne1es to its position paper are photocopies of
cash vouchers it issued to dra"a producers, as &ell as
letters of e"plo!"ent captioned =E"plo!"ent for a Speci#c
OndertaCin%=, &herein respondent &as appointed b!
diHerent dra"a directors as spinner>narrator for speci#c
radio pro%ra"s.
.3
In his Order, the Re%ional Director "erel! "ade a passin%
re"arC on petitioner9s clai" of lacC of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationshipLa toCen para%raphLand proceeded to a
detailed recitation of respondent9s alle%ations. he
docu"ents introduced b! petitioner in its position paper and
even those presented durin% the inspection &ere not %iven
an iota of credibilit!. Instead, full reco%nition and acceptance
&as accorded to the clai"s of respondentLfro" the hours
of &orC to his "onthl! salar!, to his alle%ed actual duties, as
&ell as to his alle%ed =evidence.= In fact, the #ndin%s are
anchored al"ost verbati" on the self0servin% alle%ations of
respondent.
<urther"ore, respondent9s pieces of evidenceLthe
identi#cation card and the certi#cation issued b! petitioner9s
7re"an SolanteL are not even deter"inative of an
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. he certi#cation, issued
upon the re$uest of respondent, speci#call! stated that =MR.
5,NDE'EON 5OES,N is a pro%ra" e"plo!ee of PEOP'E9S
8RO,DC,SIN7 SERVICES, INC. (DNM<0 8o"bo Rad!o
Cebu),= it is not therefore =cr!stal clear that co"plainant is a
station e"plo!ee rather than a pro%ra" e"plo!ee hence
entitled to all the bene#ts appurtenant thereto,=
.2
as found
b! the DO'E Re%ional Director. Respondent should be bound
b! his o&n evidence. Moreover, the classi#cation as to
&hether one is a =station e"plo!ee= and =pro%ra"
e"plo!ee,= as lifted fro" Polic! Instruction No. @4,
.6
dividin%
the &orCers in the broadcast industr! into onl! t&o %roups is
not bindin% on this Court, especiall! &hen the classi#cation
has no basis either in la& or in fact.
./
Even the identi#cation card purportedl! issued b! petitioner
is not proof of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship since it onl!
identi#ed respondent as an =,uthori*ed Representative of
8o"bo Rad!oQ,= and not as an e"plo!ee. he phrase %ains
si%ni#cance &hen co"pared vis a vis the follo&in% notation
in the sa"ple identi#cation cards presented b! petitioner in
its "otion for reconsideration?
-. his is to certif! that the person &hose picture and
si%nature appear hereon is an e"plo!ee of 8o"bo
Radio Philippines.
.. his ID "ust be &orn at all ti"es &ithin 8o"bo
Rad!o Philippines pre"ises for proper identi#cation
and securit!. <urther"ore, this is the propert! of
8o"bo Rad!o Philippines and "ust be surrendered
upon separation fro" the co"pan!.
KOM,N RESOORCE DEP,RMEN
(Si%ned)
5EN,'IN D. P,'ER
KRD KE,D
Respondent tried to address the discrepanc! bet&een his
identi#cation card and the standard identi#cation cards
issued b! petitioner to its e"plo!ees b! ar%uin% that &hat
he anne1ed to his position paper &as the old identi#cation
card issued to hi" b! petitioner. Ke then presented a
photocop! of another =old= identi#cation card, this ti"e
purportedl! issued to one of the e"plo!ees &ho &as issued
the ne& identi#cation card presented b!
petitioner.
.J
Respondent9s ar%u"ent does not convince. If it
&ere true that he is an e"plo!ee of petitioner, he &ould
have been issued a ne& identi#cation card si"ilar to the
ones presented b! petitioner, and he should have presented
a cop! of such ne& identi#cation card. Kis failure to sho& a
ne& identi#cation card "erel! de"onstrates that &hat he
has is onl! his =Media= ID, &hich does not constitute proof of
his e"plo!"ent &ith petitioner.
It has lon% been established that in ad"inistrative and
$uasi0+udicial proceedin%s, substantial evidence is su;cient
as a basis for +ud%"ent on the e1istence of e"plo!er0
e"plo!ee relationship. Substantial evidence, &hich is the
$uantu" of proof re$uired in labor cases, is =that a"ount of
relevant evidence &hich a reasonable "ind "i%ht accept as
ade$uate to +ustif! a conclusion.=
:4
No particular for" of
evidence is re$uired to prove the e1istence of such
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. ,n! co"petent and
relevant evidence to prove the relationship "a! be
ad"itted.
:-
Kence, &hile no particular for" of evidence is
re$uired, a #ndin% that such relationship e1ists "ust still
rest on so"e substantial evidence. Moreover, the
substantialit! of the evidence depends on its $uantitative as
&ell as its qualitative aspects.
:.
In the instant case, save for respondent9s self0servin%
alle%ations and self0defeatin% evidence, there is no
substantial 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 the
Court of ,ppeals dis"issin% the petition for certiorari, are
silent on the issue of the e1istence of an e"plo!er0
e"plo!ee relationship, &hich further su%%ests that no real
and proper deter"ination the e1istence of such relationship
&as ever "ade b! these tribunals. Even the dissent sCirted
a&a! fro" the issue of the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship and convenientl! i%nored the dearth of
evidence presented b! respondent.
,lthou%h substantial evidence is not a function of $uantit!
but rather of $ualit!, the peculiar environ"ental
circu"stances of the instant case de"and that so"ethin%
"ore should have been proHered.
::
Kad there been other
proofs of e"plo!"ent, such as respondent9s inclusion in
petitioner9s pa!roll, or a clear e1ercise of control, the Court
&ould have a;r"ed the #ndin% of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship. he Re%ional Director, therefore, co""itted
%rievous error in orderin% petitioner to ans&er for
respondent9s clai"s. Moreover, &ith the conclusion that no
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship has ever e1isted bet&een
petitioner and respondent, it is cr!stal0clear that the DO'E
Re%ional Director had no +urisdiction over respondent9s
co"plaint. hus, the i"provident e1ercise of po&er b! the
Secretar! of 'abor and the Re%ional Director behooves the
court to sub+ect their actions for revie& and to invalidate all
the subse$uent orders the! issued.
IV.
he records sho& that petitioner9s appeal &as denied
because it had alle%edl! failed to post a cash or suret!
bond. Phat it attached instead to its appeal &as the 'etter
,%ree"ent
:@
e1ecuted b! petitioner and its banC, the cash
voucher,
:3
and the Deed of ,ssi%n"ent of 8anC
Deposits.
:2
,ccordin% to the DO'E, these docu"ents do not
constitute the cash or suret! bond conte"plated b! la&I
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 to
the DO'E Secretar! is in the last para%raph of ,rt. -./ (b) of
the 'abor Code, &hich reads?
,n order issued b! the dul! authori*ed representative of the
Secretar! 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! be
perfected onl! upon the postin% of a cash or suret! bond
issued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan! dul! accredited b!
the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent in the a"ount
e$uivalent to the "onetar! a&ard in the order appealed
fro". (e"phasis supplied)
Phile the re$uire"ents for perfectin% an appeal "ust be
strictl! follo&ed as the! are considered indispensable
interdictions a%ainst needless dela!s and for orderl!
dischar%e of +udicial business, the la& does ad"it
e1ceptions &hen &arranted b! the circu"stances.
echnicalit! should not be allo&ed to stand in the &a! of
e$uitabl! and co"pletel! resolvin% the ri%hts and
obli%ations of the parties.
:6
hus, in so"e cases, the bond
re$uire"ent on appeals involvin% "onetar! a&ards had
been rela1ed, such as &hen (i) there &as substantial
co"pliance &ith the RulesI (ii) the surroundin% facts and
circu"stances constitute "eritorious %round to reduce the
bondI (iii) a liberal interpretation of the re$uire"ent of an
appeal bond &ould serve the desired ob+ective of resolvin%
controversies on the "eritsI or (iv) the appellants, at the
ver! 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 called
for to deter"ine &hether the! should have been ad"itted
as or in lieu of the suret! or cash bond to sustain the appeal
and serve the ends of substantial +ustice.
he Deed of ,ssi%n"ent reads?
DEED O< ,SSI7NMEN O< 8,NT DEPOSI
PIK SPECI,' POPER O< ,ORNEN
TNOP ,'' MEN 8N KESE PRESENS?
hat I, 7REM,N 8. SO',NE in "! capacit! as Station
Mana%er of DNM< Cebu Cit!, PEOP'E9S 8RO,DC,SIN7
SERVICES, INC., a corporation dul! authori*ed and e1istin%
under and b! virtue of the la&s of the Philippines, for and in
consideration of the su" of PESOS? PO KONDRED KREE
KOOS,ND SEVEN KONDRED PENN SIU PESOS D :4>-44
ON'N (P.4:,6.2.:4) Phil. Currenc!, as C,SK 8OND
7O,R,NEE for the "onetar! a&ard in favor to the PlaintiH
in the 'abor Case docCeted as 'SED Case No. R46440.44:0
4J0CI04J, no& pendin% appeal.
hat Respondent0,ppellant do hereb! undertaCe to
%uarantee available and su;cient funds covered b!
Platinu" Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@ of
PEOP'E9S 8RO,DC,SIN7 SERVICES, INC. in the a"ount of
PESOS? PO KONDRED KREE KOOS,ND SEVEN KONDRED
PENN SIU PESOS D :4>-44 ON'N (P.4:,6.2.:4) pa!able
to PlaintiH0,ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
Re%ional O;ce VII at Vueen Cit! Develop"ent 8anC, Cebu
8ranch, Sancian%Co St. Cebu Cit!.
It is understood that the said banC 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 PlaintiH0,ppellee> Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
Re%ional O;ce VII until such ti"e that a Prit of E1ecution
shall be ordered b! the ,ppellate O;ce.
<ORKER, this Deed of ,ssi%n"ent is li"ited to the principal
a"ount of PESOS? PO KONDRED KREE KOOS,ND SEVEN
KONDRED PENN SIU PESOS D :4>-44 ON'N (P.4:,6.2.:4)
Phil. Currenc!, therefore, an! interest to be earned fro" the
said Deposit &ill be for the account holder.
IN PINESS PKEREO<, I have hereunto a;1ed "! si%nature
this -/th da! if 5une, .44@, in the Cit! of Cebu, Philippines.
PEOP'E9S 8RO,DC,SIN7 SERVICES, INC.
8!?
(Si%ned)
7REM,N 8. SO',NE
Station Mana%er
,s priorl! "entioned, the Deed of ,ssi%n"ent &as
acco"panied b! a 'etter ,%ree"ent bet&een Vueen Cit!
Develop"ent 8anC and petitioner concernin% Platinu"
Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@,
:J
and a Cash
Voucher issued b! petitioner sho&in% the a"ount
of P.4:,6.2.:4 deposited at the said banC.
Castin% aside the technical i"precision and inaptness of
&ords that "arC the three docu"ents, a liberal readin%
reveals the docu"ents petitioner did assi%n, as cash bond
for the "onetar! a&ard in favor of respondent in 'SED Case
NO. RO6440.44:0CI04J, the a"ount of P.4:,6.2.:4 covered
b! petitioner9s PSD ,ccount No. 4-40/0444:/0@ &ith the
Vueen Cit! Develop"ent 8anC at Sancian%Co St. Cebu Cit!,
&ith the depositar! banC authori*ed to re"it the a"ount to,
and upon &ithdra&al b! respondent and or the Depart"ent
of 'abor and E"plo!"ent Re%ional O;ce VII, on the basis of
the proper &rit of e1ecution. he Court #nds that the Deed
of ,ssi%n"ent constitutes substantial co"pliance &ith the
bond re$uire"ent.
he purpose of an appeal bond is to ensure, durin% the
period of appeal, a%ainst an! occurrence that &ould defeat
or di"inish recover! b! the a%%rieved e"plo!ees under the
+ud%"ent if subse$uentl! a;r"ed.
@4
he Deed of
,ssi%n"ent in the instant case, liCe a cash or suret! bond,
serves the sa"e purpose. <irst, the Deed of ,ssi%n"ent
constitutes not +ust a partial a"ount, but rather the entire
a&ard in the appealed Order. Second, it is clear fro" the
Deed of ,ssi%n"ent that the entire a"ount is under the full
control of the banC, and not of petitioner, and is in fact
pa!able to the DO'E Re%ional O;ce, to be &ithdra&n b! the
sa"e o;ce after it had issued a &rit of e1ecution. <or all
intents and purposes, the Deed of ,ssi%n"ent in tande"
&ith the 'etter ,%ree"ent and Cash Voucher is as %ood as
cash. hird, the Court #nds that the e1ecution of the Deed of
,ssi%n"ent, the 'etter ,%ree"ent and the Cash Voucher
&ere "ade in %ood faith, and constituted clear
"anifestation of petitioner9s &illin%ness to pa! the +ud%"ent
a"ount.
he Deed of ,ssi%n"ent "ust be distin%uished fro" the
t!pe of banC certi#cation sub"itted b! appellants in
Cordova v. Te!sa9s 8outi$ue,
@-
&herein this Court found that
such banC certi#cation did not co"e close to the cash or
suret! bond re$uired b! la&. he banC certi#cation in
Cordova "erel! stated that the e"plo!er "aintains a
depositor! account &ith a balance of P.:,44/.-J, and that
the certi#cation &as issued upon the depositor9s re$uest for
&hatever le%al purposes it "a! serve. here &as no
indication that the said deposit &as "ade speci#call! for the
pendin% appeal, as in the instant case. hus, the Court ruled
that the banC certi#cation had not in an! &a! ensured that
the a&ard &ould be paid should the appeal fail. Neither &as
the appellee in the case prevented fro" "aCin% &ithdra&als
fro" the savin%s account. <inall!, the a"ount deposited &as
"easl! co"pared to the total "onetar! a&ard in the
+ud%"ent.
@.
V.
,nother $uestion of technicalit! &as posed a%ainst the
instant petition in the hope that it &ould not be %iven due
course. Respondent asserts that petitioner pursued the
&ron% "ode of appeal and thus the instant petition "ust be
dis"issed.1avvphi1.zw+ Once "ore, the Court is not
convinced.
, petition for certiorari is the proper re"ed! &hen an!
tribunal, board or o;cer e1ercisin% +udicial or $uasi0+udicial
functions has acted &ithout or in e1cess of its +urisdiction, or
&ith %rave abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess
of +urisdiction and there is no appeal, nor an! plain speed!,
and ade$uate re"ed! at la&. here is =%rave abuse of
discretion= &hen respondent acts in a capricious or
&hi"sical "anner in the e1ercise of its +ud%"ent as to be
e$uivalent to lacC of +urisdiction.
@:
Respondent "a! have a point in assertin% that in this case a
Rule 23 petition is a &ron% "ode of appeal, as indeed the
&rit of certiorari is an e1traordinar! re"ed!, and certiorari
+urisdiction is not to be e$uated &ith appellate +urisdiction.
Nevertheless, it is settled, as a %eneral proposition, that the
availabilit! of an appeal does not foreclose recourse to the
e1traordinar! re"edies, such as certiorari and prohibition,
&here appeal is not ade$uate or e$uall! bene#cial, speed!
and su;cient, as &here the orders of the trial court &ere
issued in e1cess of or &ithout +urisdiction, or there is need to
pro"ptl! relieve the a%%rieved part! fro" the in+urious
eHects of the acts of an inferior court or tribunal, e.g., the
court has authori*ed e1ecution of the +ud%"ent.
@@
his Court
has even reco%ni*ed that a recourse to certiorari is proper
not onl! &here there is a clear deprivation of petitioner9s
funda"ental ri%ht to due process, but so also &here other
special circu"stances &arrant i""ediate and "ore direct
action.
@3
In one case, it &as held that the e1traordinar! &rit of
certiorari &ill lie if it is satisfactoril! established that the
tribunal acted capriciousl! and &hi"sicall! in total disre%ard
of evidence "aterial to or even decisive of the
controvers!,
@2
and if it is sho&n that the refusal to allo& a
Rule 23 petition &ould result in the inWiction of an in+ustice
on 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 &ithout
an! 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.
@/
he
Court has not too infre$uentl! %iven due course to a petition
for certiorari, even &hen the proper re"ed! &ould have
been an appeal, &here valid and co"pellin% considerations
&ould &arrant such a recourse.
@J
Moreover, the Court
allo&ed a Rule 23 petition, despite the availabilit! of plain,
speed! or ade$uate re"ed!, in vie& of the i"portance of
the issues raised
therein.
34
he rules &ere also rela1ed b! the Court after
considerin% the public interest involved in the caseI
3-
&hen
public &elfare and the advance"ent of public polic!
dictatesI &hen the broader interest of +ustice so re$uiresI
&hen the &rits issued are null and voidI 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 held
in Republic v. Court of ,ppeals, -46 SCR, 34@, 3.@, the
Xe1ercise once "ore of our e1clusive prero%ative to suspend
our o&n rules or to e1e"pt a particular case fro" its
operation as in 1 1 Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
,ppeals, et al., (/: SCR, @3:, @6/0@/4 A-J6/B), thus? X 1 1
he Rules have been drafted &ith the pri"ar! ob+ective of
enhancin% fair trials and e1peditin% +ustice. ,s a corollar!, if
their applications and operation tend to subvert and defeat
instead 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"ents
presented as evidence b! respondent. o "aCe "atters
&orse, DO'E denied petitioner9s appeal based solel! on
petitioner9s alle%ed failure to #le a cash or suret! bond,
&ithout an! discussion on the "erits of the case. Since the
petition for certiorari before the Court of ,ppeals sou%ht the
reversal of the t&o aforesaid orders, the appellate court
necessaril! had to e1a"ine the evidence ane& to deter"ine
&hether the conclusions of the DO'E &ere supported b! the
evidence presented. It appears, ho&ever, that the Court of
,ppeals 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 court
trul! revie&ed the records of the case, it &ould have seen
that 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 has
previousl! ruled that the e1traordinar! &rit of certiorari &ill
lie if it is satisfactoril!1avvphi1
established that the tribunal had acted capriciousl! and
&hi"sicall! in total disre%ard of evidence "aterial to or
even decisive of the controvers!.
3@
he "ost i"portant consideration for the allo&ance of the
instant petition is the opportunit! for the Court not onl! to
set the de"arcation bet&een the N'RC9s +urisdiction and the
DO'E9s prero%ative but also the procedure &hen the case
involves the funda"ental challen%e on the DO'E9s
prero%ative based on lacC of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship. ,s e1haustivel! discussed here, the DO'E9s
prero%ative hin%es on the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship, the issue is &hich is at the ver! heart of this
case. ,nd the evidence clearl! indicates private respondent
has never been petitioner9s e"plo!ee. 8ut the DO'E did not
address, &hile the Court of ,ppeals %lossed over, the issue.
he pere"ptor! dis"issal of the instant petition on a
technicalit! &ould deprive the Court of the opportunit! to
resolve the novel controvers!.1avvphi1
PKERE<ORE, the petition is 7R,NED. he Decision dated
.2 October .442 and the Resolution dated .2 5une .446 of
the Court of ,ppeals in C.,. 7.R. CE80SP No. 44/33 are
REVERSED and SE ,SIDE. he Order of the then ,ctin%
Secretar! of the Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
dated .6 5anuar! .443 den!in% petitioner9s appeal, and the
Orders of the Director, DO'E Re%ional O;ce No. VII, dated
.@ Ma! .44@ and .6 <ebruar! .44@, respectivel!, are
,NNO''ED. he co"plaint a%ainst petitioner is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
,ssociate 5ustice
PE CONCOR?
CONC"ITA CARPIO MORALES
R
,ssociate 5ustice
,ctin% Chairperson
PRESBITERO (.
%ELASCO, (R.
,ssociate 5ustice
TERESITA (. LEONARDO*
DE CASTRO
RR
,ssociate 5ustice
ARTURO D. BRION
,ssociate 5ustice
, E S , I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case &as assi%ned to the
&riter of the opinion of the Court9s Division.
CONC"ITA CARPIO MORALES
,ssociate 5ustice
,ctin% Chairperson, Second Division
C E R I < I C , I O N
Pursuant to Section -:, ,rticle VIII of the Constitution, and
the Division Chairperson9s ,ttestation, it is hereb! certi#ed
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case &as assi%ned to the
&riter of the opinion of the Court9s Division.
RE!NATO S. PUNO
Chief 5ustice
$oo+&o+,-
R
,ctin% Chairperson.
RR
Per Special Order No. 2-J, 5ustice eresita 5.
'eonardo0De Castro is hereb! desi%nated as
additional "e"ber of the Second Division in lieu of
5ustice 'eonardo ,. Vuisu"bin%, &ho is on o;cial
leave
-
People9s 8roadcastin% Service (8o"bo Rad!o Phils.,
Inc) v. he Secretar! of the Depart"ent of 'abor and
E"plo!"ent, the Re%ional Director, DO'E Re%ion VII
and 5andeleon 5ue*an, rollo, pp. :/0@: and 32,
respectivel!. Penned b! ,ssociate 5ustice Pa"pio ,.
,barintos, &ith ,ssociate 5ustices ,%ustin S. Di*on
and Priscilla 8alta*ar0Padilla, concurrin%.
.
Co"plaint dated -/ Septe"ber .44:, id. at J3.
:
Id. at J..
@
Id. at J@.
3
Id.
2
Per Minutes of the -- Nove"ber .44: Su""ar!
Proceedin%, DO'E records, p. .@.
6
Rollo, pp. J20JJ.
/
DO'E Records, pp. -3-0-3..
J
Id. at .-60.-J.
-4
Rollo, pp. :/0@:.
--
Resolution dated .2 5une .446, id. at 32.
-.
Petitioner "aintains that the instant case is be!ond
the +urisdiction of the Re%ional Director because
respondent9s clai" e1ceeds P 3,444. he ar%u"ent
"ust be strucC 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 and
enforce"ent po&ers of the Re%ional Director can be
e1ercised even if the individual clai" e1ceeds P
3,444. 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.
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.
-3
Dated -2 Septe"ber -J/6 issued b! then DO'E
Secretar! <ranClin M. Drilon. he sa"e Rules are
used up to the present.
-2
7.R. No. -24/3J, :4 5ul! .44/, 324 SCR, @36.
-6
Id. at @2J. he Court "ade the rulin% onl! as
re%ards respondent ,buan &ho had "ade a clai" of
ille%al dis"issal but $uali#ed that =the sa"e (the
rulin%) does not hold for the rest of respondents, &ho
do not clai" to have ille%all! dis"issed.
-/
8unbur! v. <uller J E1. ---, -@4 (-/3:), cited in
Cases, Materials and Co""entar! on ,d"inistrative
'a& b! S.K. 8aile!, 8.'. 5ones, ,.R. Mo&bra!, p. @.:.
his vie& is "ore popularl! called the =preli"inar! or
collateral $uestion.=
-J
Re Ontario Nurses ,ssociation v. Pa! E$uit!
Kearin%s ribunal and 7len%arr! Me"orial Kospital,
-4 ,pril -JJ3, Decision of the Ontario Court of
,ppeals.
.4
Ropali radin% Corporation v. N'RC, 7.R. No.
-..@4J, .3 Septe"ber -JJ/, .
.-
<eli1 v. Enertech S!ste"s Industries, Inc., 7.R. No.
-@.446, ./ March .44-, :33 SCR, 2/4.
..
'abor Code, ,rt. -./ (a).
.:
Respondent9s position paper, DO'E Records, pp.
.J0:6.
.@
Id. at ./.
.3
Id. at @@0@J.
.2
Order dated .6 <ebruar! .44@, id. at 2@.
.6
Issued b! then Minister of 'abor 8las <. Ople on /
5anuar! -J6J, it %overns the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship, hours of &orC and disputes settle"ent
in the broadcast industr!.
./
Son*a v. ,8S0C8N 8roadcastin% Corporation, 7.R.
No. -:/43-, -4 5une .44@, @:- SCR, 3/:,242.
.J
he ar%u"ent &as "ade in respondent9s
Co""ents on Respondent9s Motion for
Reconsideration, DO'E Records, pp. -:30-:/,
photocop! of the identi#cation card is on p. -:@.
:4
Rules of Court, Rule -::, Sec. 3.
:-
Opulencia Ice Plant and Stora%e v. N'RC, 7.R. No.
J/:2/, -3 Dece"ber -JJ:, ../ SCR, @6:.
:.
Insular 'ife ,ssurance Co., 'td. E"plo!ees
,ssociation0Natu, et al. v. Insular 'ife ,ssurance Co.,
'td., et al., 7.R. No. '0.3.J-, -4 March -J66, 62
SCR, 3-.
::
Paci#c Mariti"e Services, Inc., et al. v. Nicanor
Rana!, et al., 7.R. No. ---44., 5ul! .-, -JJ6, .63
SCR, 6-6.
:@
DO'E Records, p. .4J.
:3
Id. at .4/.
:2
Id. at .46.
:6
Oro*co v. Court of ,ppeals, 7.R. No. -33.46, .J
,pril .443, @36 SCR, 644, 64J, citations o"itted.
:/
Nicol v. <oot+o! Industrial Corp., 7.R. No. -3J:6.,
.6 5ul! .446, 3./ SCR, :44, :-/.
:J
he 'etter ,%ree"ent contains the interest rate for
the deposit, the "aturit! date, the stipulated interest
rates in case the principal is &ithdra&n &ithin a
certain period, as &ell as the .4Y &ithholdin% ta1.
@4
Cordova v. Te!sa9s 8outi$ue, 7.R. No. -32:6J, -2
Septe"ber .443, @64 SCR, -@@, -3@, citin% Nour 8us
'ines v. N'RC, 7.R. No. J::/-, ./ Septe"ber -JJ4,
-J4 SCR, -24.
@-
Id.
@.
Id. In this case, the banC certi#cation "erel! stated
that the spouses> e"plo!er have>has a depositor!
account containin% a certain a"ount, and that the
certi#cation &as issued upon the clients9 re$uest for
&hatever le%al purposes it "a! serve the". here
&as no indication that the said deposit &as "ade
speci#call! for the pendin% appeal, as in the instant
case.
@:
Condo Suite Club ravel, Inc. v. N'RC, 7. R. No.
-.326-, 5anuar! ./, .444, :.: SCR, 26J.
@@
Provident International Resources Corp. v. Court of
,ppeals, 7. R. No. --J:./, .2 5ul! -JJ2, .3J SCR,
3-4.
@3
Conti v. Court of ,ppeals, 7. R. No. -:@@@-, -J Ma!
-JJJ, :46 SCR, @/2 citin% Detective D Protective
8ureau v. Cloribel, '0.:@./, .J Nove"ber -J2/, .2
SCR, .33 and Matute v. Court of ,ppeals, '0.24/3,
:- 5anuar! -J2J, .2 SCR, 62/.
@2
Sarate v. Ole%ario, 7.R. No. J4233, 6 October
-JJ2,.2: SCR, -.
@6
Destileria 'i"tuaco D Co., Inc. v. I,C, '06@:2J, .J
5anuar! -J//, -36 SCR, 642,6-3.
@/
7utib v. Court of ,ppeals, 7.R. No. -:-.4J, -:
,u%ust -JJJ, :-. SCR, :23.
@J
Santo o"as Oniversit! Kospital v. Surla, 7.R. No.
-.J6-/, -6 ,u%ust -JJ/, .J@ SCR, :/..
34
<iloteo v. Sandi%anba!an, 7.R. No. 6J3@:, -2
October -JJ2, .2: SCR, ....
3-
Os"eZa III, et al. v. Sandi%anba!an, 7.R. No.
--2J@-, :- Ma! .44-
3.
Chua, et al. v. Santos, 7.R. No. -:.@26, @@4 SCR,
:23, :6@0:63, citin% MMD, v. 5,NCON Environ"ental
Corp., 7.R. No. -@6@23, :4 5anuar! .44., :63 SCR,
:.4.
3:
Destileria 'i"tuaco D Co., Inc. v. I,C, '06@:2J, .J
5anuar! -J//, -36 SCR, 642, 6-2, citin% Republic v.
Court of Appeals, '03@//2, -4 Septe"ber -J/-, -46
SCR, 34@ and Republic v. Court of Appeals, '0:-:4:0
4@, :- Ma! -J6/, /: SCR, @3J..
3@
Supra note @2.
he 'a&phil Pro+ect 0 ,rellano 'a& <oundation
DISSENTING OPINION
BRION, J.:
I dissent and vote for the dis"issal of the petition.
his case ori%inated fro" a Depart"ent of 'abor and
E"plo!"ent (DO'E) inspection conducted pursuant to
,rticle -./ of the 'abor Code.
-
he DO'E Re%ional Director
(Director), the DO'E Secretar! (Secretar!), and the Court of
,ppeals (C,) consistentl! ruled that an e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship e1isted bet&een petitioner 8o"bo Rad!o and
the respondent, and that the petitioner is liable for the
pa!"ent of the respondent9s "onetar! clai"s. he
ponencia, repetitivel! bendin% over bacC&ards, reverses all
these rulin%s and holds that the result should be other&ise.
I. 7rounds for Dissent.
I vote to dis"iss the petition for the follo&in% reasons?
-. he petitioner chose the &ron% recourse in
seeCin% the revie& b! this Court of the C,9s decision
on the petitioner9s Rule 23 petition for certiorariI the
petitioner ca"e to us via another petition for
certiorari under Rule 23 &hen the appropriate "ode
is a petition for revie& on certiorari under Rule @3.
he ponencia bends over bacC&ards to
acco""odate 8o"bo Rad!o9s le%all! erroneous
petition to open the &a! for its revie& of the
ad"inistrative (DO'E) decisions and the support the
C, %ave these decisions.
.. he Director ori%inall! ordered the pa!"ent of the
respondent9s "onetar! clai" in his Order of <ebruar!
.6, .44@.
a. he petitioner &as %iven all the opportunit!
to present evidence to oppose the 'abor
Inspector9s #ndin%sI hence, it cannot plead
lacC of due process for lacC of opportunit! to
be heard.
b. he Director dul! considered the evidence
on the issue of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship in both his initial decision
.
and in
his resolution of Ma! .@, .44@.
:
he ponencia,
nitpicCin% the Director9s decision for not
statin% ho& each piece of evidence &as ruled
upon, char%es that the decision disre%arded
the petitioner9s evidence. his stance i%nores
the le%al realit! that the Constitution onl!
re$uires the factual and le%al bases for the
decision to be stated,
@
and that the decision
"aCer is not under an! obli%ation to state in
its decision ever! fact and bit of evidence the
parties sub"itted.
3
c. he nature of the proceedin%s, level of
evidence re$uired, and level of e1pertise
bet&een 'abor ,rbiters and the Re%ional
Director are not diHerent and one tribunal
holds no pri"ac! over the other in the
deter"ination of the e"plo!"ent relationship
issue. he ter"s and structure of ,rticle
-./(b), as a"ended b! R.,. 66:4, are clear
and need not %ive rise to the ponencia9s fear
of confusion in deter"inin% the e"plo!"ent
relationship issue.
:. he Secretar! has e1panded visitorial and
enforce"ent po&ers under ,rticle -./ of the 'abor
Code, as a"ended b! R.,. 66:4I
2
he or his
representative has full authorit! under the a"ended
,rticle -./ to deter"ine &hether e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship e1ists.
@. ,rticle -./ of the 'abor Code clearl! provides that
an appeal is perfected =onl!= b! the postin% of cash
or suret! bondI the Deed of ,ssi%n"ent the
petitioner sub"itted to the DO'E is neither a cash
nor a suret! bond, and the Secretar! correctl!
dis"issed the petitioner9s appeal because it &as not
dul! perfected. he ponencia bends over be!ond the
la&9s breaCin% point to ad"it the petitioner9s appeal
despite its in#r"it! under the clear ter"s and intent
of the la&.
a. he Secretar! full! e1plained the reasons
for the non0perfection of appeal in an ori%inal
Order dated 5anuar! .J, .443 and in her
subse$uent Order dated Ma! .:, .443 on the
petitioner9s "otion for reconsideration. he
ponencia sees not onl! le%al error but %rave
abuse of discretion althou%h the Secretar!
follo&ed the letter and intent of the la&, as
plainl! stated in the la& itself and as
interpreted b! this Court in its rulin%s.
b. Petitioners have onl! the"selves to bla"e
for their lost appeal to the 'abor Secretar! for
their failure to post the re$uired bond for the
perfection of their appeal.
c. he Director9s Order lapsed to #nalit! &hen
the petitioner failed to perfect its appeal to
the DO'E Secretar!. he ponencia di%s deep
into this Court9s revie& po&er, eHectivel!
bendin% established rules and +urisprudence,
to reach and nullif! the eHects of this #rst
level decision.
3. he Court of ,ppeals correctl! dis"issed the
petitioner9s petition for certiorari for lacC of "erit.
a. he C, cannot be &ron% &hen it refused to
reco%ni*e that no %rave abuse of discretion
attended the Secretar!9s dis"issal of an
appeal that &as never perfected based on the
letter and intent of the la&I
b. he C, cannot be &ron% in its conclusion
that no violation of due process attended the
Director9s rulin%, as stated aboveI
c. he C, could not have ruled on other issues
after it reco%ni*ed that no appeal &as
perfected and no abuse of discretion attended
the assailed decisionsI liCe&ise, it could not
have reco%ni*ed an! le%al error on the part of
the Secretar! for not discussin% other issues
after reco%ni*in% that the petitioner did not
perfect its appeal.
2. he petitioner9s evidence, at the "ost, established
a doubt on the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship
issue, &hich doubt should be resolved in favor of the
respondent0&orCer.
6
II. 8acC%round
DO'E Re%ional O;ce No. VII conducted an inspection of the
pre"ises of the petitioner resultin% in an inspection
report>reco""endation orderin% 8o"bo Rad!o to
rectif!>restitute, &ithin #ve (3) da!s fro" notice, the
violation discovered durin% the inspection. Rad!o 8o"bo
failed to undertaCe an! recti#cation so that a su""ar!
investi%ation ensued &here the parties &ere re$uired to
sub"it their respective position papers. Rad!o 8o"bo
reiterated its position, "ade durin% inspection, that the
respondent &as not an e"plo!eeI he &as a dra"a talent
hired on a per dra"a =participation basis.= 8oth parties
presented evidence in support of their respective positions.
DO'E Director Rodolfo M. Sabulao, in an order dated
<ebruar! .6, .44@, re$uired 8o"bo Rad!o to pa! the
respondent P.4:,6.2.:4 in satisfaction of his "one! clai"s.
o directl! cite the Director9s rulin% to avoid
theponencias selectivel! chosen presentation, &e $uote?
, careful perusal of the records of this case sho&ed that
co"plainant 5andeleon 5ue*an &as hired b! the respondent
as a radio talent>spinner and &orC si1 (2) da!s a &eeC fro"
/?44 ,.M. to 3?44 P.M., Monda! thru Saturda!. It &as the
respondent &ho paid co"plainant9s salar! ever! $uincena
and &as re$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 &ith
the 8roadcast Media Counsel as re$uired. Ke is re$uired to
observe nor"al &orCin% hours that deductions are "ade for
tardiness. herefore, it is cr!stal clear that co"plainant is a
station e"plo!ee rather than a pro%ra" e"plo!ee hence
entitled to all bene#ts appurtenant thereto.
I& 'o.&/ -o, +0, D.1,2+o1 340,5' +0, ,6.-+,&2, o7
,845oy,1*,845oy,, 1,5a+.o&-0.4 9,+:,,& +0,
91oa'2a-+.&/ -+a+.o& a&' +0, 1,-4o&',&+. 8o"bo
Rad!o "oved for reconsideration, attachin% additional
evidence 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 'abor
Code
/
in relation &ith the Rules on Disposition of 'abor
Standards Cases in the Re%ional O;ce.
J
T0, a44,a5 :a-
'.-8.--,' .& a& o1',1 'a+,' (a&3a1y 27, 2005 9y +0,
A2+.&/ DOLE S,21,+a1y '3, +o Bo89o Ra'yo;- 7a.531,
+o 4o-+ a 2a-0 o1 -31,+y 9o&' a- 1,<3.1,' 9y A1+.25,
128 o7 +0, La9o1 Co',. he petitioner9s ne1t recourse &as
to %o to the Court of ,ppeals (C,).
he petitioner =5,' :.+0 +0, CA a 4,+.+.o&
7o1 certiorari 3&',1 R35, 65 of the Rules of Court alle%in%
%rave abuse of discretion. he petition cited the follo&in%
%rounds, &hich I $uote for purposes of certaint! [
-. he public respondent co""itted %rave abuse of
discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of +urisdiction
&hen it denied due course to the petitionI
.. he public respondent co""itted %rave abuse of
discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of +urisdiction
&hen it assu"ed +urisdiction over the clai" of the
private respondent even as under R.,. 26-3
+urisdiction lies &ith the N'RC, hence, clearl!, the
Konorable Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent, &ith
due respect, co""itted errors of la&I
:. he public respondent co""itted %rave abuse of
discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of +urisdiction
&hen it dis"issed the appeal b! the respondent
&ithout delvin% on the issues raised b! the
petitionerI
@. here is no appeal or an! clai", speed! and
ade$uate re"ed! in the ordinar! course of la&
available to the petitioner.
he C, dul! considered the points raised, but ulti"atel!
dis"issed the petition for lacC of "erit. Petitioner no&
co"es to the Court, a%ain under Rule 23 of the Rules of
Court alle%in% the follo&in% %rounds?
-. he Konorable Court of ,ppeals co""itted %rave
abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of
+urisdiction &hen it rules that the Secretar! of 'abor
and E"plo!"ent has +urisdiction over the clai" of
the 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 of
la&.
.. he Konorable Court of ,ppeals co""itted %rave
abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of
+urisdiction &hen it upheld the Order of the Secretar!
of 'abor and E"plo!"ent despite the patent lacC of
due process.
:. he Konorable Court of ,ppeals co""itted %rave
abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of
+urisdiction &hen it dis"issed the appeal &ithout
delvin% on the issues raised b! the petitioner. Its
decision dated October .2, .442 did not even rule on
the issue raised b! the petition that there is no
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship bet&een it and
respondent 5ue*an.
@. here is no appeal or an! plain and ade$uate
re"ed! in the ordinar! course of la& available to the
petition.
III. Discussion
hese discussions address the above %rounds for dissent,
not necessaril! in the order posed above in li%ht of the inter0
relationships of these %rounds &ith one another.
Propriet! of a Rule 23 Petition for Certiorari
he ponencia +usti#es the %rant of e1traordinar! treat"ent
to the petitioner9s Rule 23 petition for certiorari? (-) b!
%eneral state"ents, supported b! cited +urisprudence, on
&hen a Rule 23 petition for certiorari "a! be ad"itted in
lieu of the Rule @3 petition for revie& on certiorari that is the
re$uired "ode of revie& fro" a rulin% of the Court of
,ppealsI and (.) b! ur%in% a rela1ation of the rules in vie&
of the attendant le%al and factual circu"stances of the
present case.
-4
It thereafter ur%es the suspension of the
applicable rule on "ode of revie&, as follo&s?
he peculiar circu"stances of this case &arrant, as &e held
in Republic v. Court of ,ppeals, -46 SCR, 34@, 3.@, the
e1ercise once "ore of our e1clusive prero%ative to suspend
our o&n rules or to e1e"pt a particular case fro" its
operation as in 1 1 1 Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
,ppeals, et. al., (/: SCR, @3:, @6/0@/4 A-J6/B), thus? 1 1 1
the rules have been drafted &ith the pri"ar! ob+ective of
enhancin% fair trials and e1peditin% +ustice. ,s corollar!, if
their application and operation tend to subvert and defeat
instead of pro"ote and enhance it, their suspension is
+usti#ed.
Pith these %eneral state"ents, as pre"ises,
the ponencia %enerall! adverts to the Re%ional Director9s
alle%ed irre%ular handlin% of the case and "isinterpretation
of the respondent9s docu"entsI the DO'E Secretar!9s failure
to discuss the "erits of the case after she found the appeal
to have failed for failure to post the re$uired bondI and the
alle%ed failure of the C, to e1a"ine the records and its
focus on the discussion of due process and the +urisdiction of
the Re%ional Director.
Onder these ter"s, the ponencia hopes to open the door for
the ad"ission of the petition, thereb! %ivin% its i"pri"atur
to the petitioner9s clai" that it resorted to a Rule 23 petition
because it had no appeal, or an! plain and ade$uate
re"ed! in the ordinar! course of la&.
I sub"it that the petitioner9s &ron% "ode of appeal in
co"in% to this Court cannot be %lossed over and si"pl!
hidden behind %eneral state"ents "ade b! this Court in the
conte1t of the uni$ue and appropriate factual settin%s of the
cited cases, %enerall! applied to the ponencias distorted
vie& of the circu"stances of this case.
he C, decision under revie& si"pl! and plainl! holds that
the Secretar! co""itted no %rave abuse of discretion &hen
she dis"issed an appeal that &as supported b! neither a
cash nor a suret! bond that the la& re$uires, and that the
DO'E Director did not violate the petitioner9s ri%ht to due
after it &as %iven full and a"ple hearin% opportunities and
its sub"itted evidence &ere considered and found &antin%.
In fact, on its face, the petition for certiorari before the C,
does not deserve an! "erit as it si"pl! hid behind the
"a%ic for"ula [ %rave abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lacC
or e1cess of +urisdiction [ to +ustif! a revie& of a decision
that has lapsed to #nalit! for the petitioner9s failure to
perfect its appeal. <ull! e1a"ined, &hat the petition cites
are reall! inconse$uential %rounds dis"issible on their face
or perceived errors of la& (as in fact the petition so states in
its cited .nd %round).
--
, co"parison of the %rounds cited in the present petition
and the petition before the C, sho&s that in co"in% to this
Court, the petitioner si"pl! repeated the sa"e issues it
sub"itted to the Court of ,ppeals. he onl! diHerence is
that it no& cites the C, as the tribunal co""ittin% the %rave
abuse of discretion a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of
+urisdiction. In co"in% to this Court, on the sa"e %rounds
cited before and ruled upon b! the C,, the petitioner is
"erel! asCin% this Court to revie& the C, rulin% on the
=%rave abuse of discretion= issues the petitioner raised
before the C,. Such a revie& is an appeal that, under our
Rules, should fall under Rule @3 [ a petition for revie&
on certiorari. It is not accurate therefore for the petitioner to
sa! that there is no re"ed! available to it in the ordinar!
course of la&. Neither is it correct to characteri*e this
situation as an e1traordinar! one that "erits the suspension
of the Rules. he appropriate re"ed! is a Rule @3 petition
for revie& on certiorari &hich is envisioned to correct errors
of la&,
-.
precisel! the errors cited b! the petitioner as
havin% been co""itted b! the C,.
Much harder to accept is the ponencias cavalier attitude
to&ards the petitioner9s state"ent that there is no appeal,
or an! plain and ade$uate re"ed! in the ordinar! course of
la& available to the petitioner, &hen a Rule @3 appeal is
readil! available to it and &ould have been the proper
course since it cited errors of la& a%ainst the C,. 8!
acceptin% the present Rule 23 petition in place of a Rule @3
petition for revie& on certiorari &ithout an! su;cientl!
de"onstrated "eritorious %round for e1ceptional treat"ent,
&e are eHectivel! ne%atin% our rulin% in the recent Cecilia 8.
Estino*o v. Court of ,ppeals, et al.
-:
that a petition for
revie& on certiorari under Rule @3 and a petition
for certiorari under Rule 23 are "utuall! e1clusive.
he le%al and factual circu"stances the ponencia cites as
+usti#cator! reasons are in fact the issues discussed in this
caseI for this reason, there need not be discussed here for
purposes of an orderl! presentation, and &ill be full!
discussed in their proper places belo& [ su;ce it to sa! for
no& that the proceedin%s belo& &ere conducted properl! as
the C, found. I7 +0,1, .- a&y+0.&/ ,6+1ao1'.&a1y a9o3+
+0.- 2a-, a+ +0.- 4o.&+, .+ .- +0, 5,&/+0- +0, 4o&,&2.a
0a- /o&, +o 9,&' o>,1 9a2?:a1'- a&' @3-+.7y +0,
/1a&+ o7 +0, 4,+.+.o&. I+ +03- /5o--,- o>,1 +0, :1o&/
8o', o7 a44,a5 +o +0.- Co31+ a&' +0, 4,+.+.o&,1;-
7a.531, +o 4,17,2+ .+- a44,a5 +o +0, DOLE S,21,+a1y,
a&' ,>,& 8.&3+,5y a&a5yA,- +0, 7a2+- 9,7o1, +0,
R,/.o&a5 D.1,2+o1 +o -0o: +0a+ +0, R,/.o&a5
D.1,2+o1;- 135.&/ .- 5,/a55y .&2o11,2+. $.&a55y, .+ /1o--5y
8.-.&+,141,+- S,2+.o& 1289# o7 +0, La9o1 Co',, ,>,&
2.+.&/ a& .845,8,&+.&/ 135, +0a+ 0a' 9,,& o>,1+a?,&
9y +0, a8,&'8,&+ o7 +0, 2.+,' -,2+.o& o7 +0, Co',,
a&', 7o1 +0, 4314o-,, ,>,& 2.+,' +0, 2o88o& 5a:.
I cite all these to stress that &e should e1a"ine the
ponencia carefull!, particularl! its +usti#cations for the %rant
of e1traordinar! treat"ent to the petitioner, before +oinin%
the ponencia.
he Secretar!9s Visitorial Po&ers
, "a+or issue for the ponencia is the Director9s
deter"ination that e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1isted
bet&een the petitioner and the respondent at the ti"e of
the inspection. Citin% "ainl! Section :, Rule -- of the Rules
on the Disposition of 'abor Standards Cases,
-@
the ponencia
rationali*es?
he clause =in cases &here the relationship of e"plo!er0
e"plo!ee still e1ists= si%ni#es that the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship "ust have e1isted even before the e"er%ence
of the controvers!. N,2,--a1.5y, +0, DOLE;- 4o:,1 'o,-
&o+ a445y .& +:o .&-+a&2,-, &a8,5yB a# :0,1, +0,
,845oy,1*,845oy,, 1,5a+.o&-0.4 0a- 2,a-,'C a&' 9#
:0,1, &o -320 1,5a+.o&-0.4 0a- ,>,1 ,6.-+,'.
he #rst situation is cate%oricall! covered b! Sec. :, Rule --
of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Stanars
Cases issued b! the DO'E Secretar!. It reads?
Sec. :. Co!plaints where no e!plo"er#e!plo"ee
relationship actuall" e$ists. Phere e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship no lon%er e1ists b! reason of the fact that it has
alread! been severed, clai"s for pa!"ent of "onetar!
bene#ts fall &ithin the e1clusive and ori%inal +urisdiction of
the labor arbiters. ,ccordin%l!, if on the face of the
co"plaint, it can be ascertained that e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship no lon%er e1ists, the case, &hether
acco"panied b! an alle%ation of ille%al dis"issal, shall
i""ediatel! be endorsed b! the Re%ional Director to the
appropriate branch of the National 'abor Relations
Co""ission (N'RC).
111 111 111
In the #rst situation, the clai" has to be referred to the
N'RC because it is the N'RC &hich has +urisdiction in vie& of
the ter"ination of the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship. he
sa"e procedure has to be follo&ed in the second situation
since it is the N'RC that has +urisdiction in vie& of the
absence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship bet&een the
evidentiar! parties fro" the start.
Clearl! the la& accords a prero%ative to the N'RC over the
clai" &hen the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship has
ter"inated or such relationship has not arisen at all. he
reason is obvious. In the second situation especiall!, the
e1istence 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 a
relationship are not veri#able fro" a "ere ocular
e1a"ination. he intricacies and i"plications of an
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship de"and that the level of
scrutin! should be far above the cursor! and the
"echanical. Phile docu"ents, particularl! docu"ents found
in the e"plo!er9s o;ce are the pri"ar! source "aterials,
&hat "a! prove decisive are factors related to the histor! of
the e"plo!er9s business operations, its current state as &ell
as accepted conte"porar! practices in the industr!. More
often than not, the $uestion of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship beco"es a battle of evidence, the
deter"ination of &hich should be co"prehensive and
intensive and therefore best left to the speciali*ed $uasi0
+udicial bod! that is the N'RC.
I+ 2a& 9, a--38,' +0a+ +0, DOLE .& +0, ,6,12.-, o7 .+-
>.-.+o1.a5 a&' ,&7o12,8,&+ 4o:,1 -o8,0o: 0a- +o
8a?, a ',+,18.&a+.o& o7 +0, ,6.-+,&2, o7 a&
,845oy,1*,845oy,, 1,5a+.o&-0.4. S320 41,1o/a+.>a5
',+,18.&a+.o&, 0o:,>,1, 2a&&o+ 9, 2o,6+,&-.>, :.+0
+0, >.-.+o1.a5 a&' ,&7o12,8,&+ 4o:,1 .+-,57. I&',,',
-320 ',+,18.&a+.o& o7 +0, ,6.-+,&2, o7 ,845oy,1*
,845oy,, 1,5a+.o&-0.4 .- -+.55 41.8a1.5y 5o'/,' :.+0
+0, NLRC. T0.- .- +0, 8,a&.&/ o7 +0, 25a3-, D.& 2a-,-
:0,1, +0, 1,5a+.o&-0.4 o7 ,845oy,1*,845oy,, -+.55
,6.-+-D .& A1+. 128 9#.
his approach is a le%all! incorrect due "ainl! to
the ponencias lacC of appreciation of the e1tent of the
DO'E Secretar!9s visitorial and enforce"ent po&ers under
the 'abor Code, as a"ended, and a "is0readin% of the
current la& and the applicable i"ple"entin% rules. he
present la& %ives the Secretar! or his representative the
authorit! to full! deter"ine &hether e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship e1istsI onl! upon a sho&in% that it does not, is
the DO'E divested of +urisdiction over the case.
In the #rst place, the ponencia is #1ated on the application
of the Rules on the Disposition of 'abor Standards Cases in
the Re%ional O;ces &hich cannot no& be cited and used in
their 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 the
contrar! not&ithstandin% and in cases &here the
relationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ist, the Minister of
'abor and E"plo!"ent or his dul! authori*ed
representatives shall have the po&er to order and
ad"inister, after due notice and hearin%, co"pliance &ith
the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor
le%islation based on the #ndin%s of labor relation o;cers or
industrial 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 &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 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 of
this Code to the contrar!, and in cases &here the
relationship of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee still e1ists, the Secretar!
of 'abor and E"plo!"ent or his dul! authori*ed
representatives shall have the po&er to issue co"pliance
orders to %ive eHect to the labor standards provisions of this
Code and other labor le%islation based on the #ndin%s of
labor e"plo!"ent and enforce"ent o;cers or industrial
safet! en%ineers "ade in the course of inspection. %he
Secretar" or his ul" authorize representatives shall issue
writs of e$ecution to the appropriate authorit" for the
enforce!ent of their orers& e1cept in cases &here the
e"plo!er contests the #ndin%s of the labor e"plo!"ent and
enforce"ent o;cer and raises issues supported b!
docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in the
course of inspection.
,n order issued b! the dul! authori*ed representative of the
Secretar! 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! be
perfected onl! upon the postin% of a cash or suret! bond
issued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan! dul! accredited b!
the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent in the a"ount
e$uivalent to the "onetar! a&ard in the order appealed
fro".
his a"end"ent is critical in vie&in% the Secretar!9s
visitorial and enforce"ent po&ers as the! introduced ne&
features that e1panded these po&ers, thereb! aHectin% the
cited Rules as &ell as the process of referrin% an inspection
case to the N'RC.
, #rst distinction bet&een the ori%inal and the a"ended
,rticle -./(b) is the reference to ,rticle .-6 of the 'abor
Code in the =not&ithstandin%= clause. ,s a"ended, ,rticle
-.J is also referred to. Read in relation &ith ,rticle .-6, the
eHect is the re"oval of the P3,444.44 ceilin% in the
Secretar!9s visitorial po&ers [ a conclusion that the
ponencia full! supports.
,nother distinction relates to the present clause =e1cept in
cases &here the e"plo!er contests the #ndin%s of the labor
e"plo!"ent and enforce"ent o;cer and raises issues
supported b! docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not
considered in the course of inspection= (the =e1ceptin%
clause=). In the ori%inal version of ,rticle -./(b), this clause
states [ =e1cept in cases &here the e"plo!er contests the
#ndin%s of the labor re%ulation o;cer and raises issues
&hich cannot be resolved &ithout considerin% evidentiar!
"atters that are not veri#able in the nor"al course of
inspection.= hus, previousl!, the la& referred to "atters
that the labor re%ulation o;cer could not have ruled upon
because the! are not veri#able in the nor"al course of
inspection. Onder the present for"ulation, reference is onl!
to =docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in the
course of inspection= used in a diHerent conte1t e1plained
belo&. e1tuall!, the present for"ulation refers onl! to
docu"entar! evidence that "i%ht or "i%ht not have been
available durin% inspection but &ere not considered.
he diHerence can be e1plained b! the ne& and uni$ue
for"ulation of the &hole ,rticle -./(b). In the ori%inal
provision, the visitorial and enforce"ent po&er of the
Minister of 'abor and E"plo!"ent %enerall! prevailed over
the +urisdiction over arbitration cases %ranted to 'abor
,rbiters 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 &ould
not su;ce because of evidentiar! "atters that have to be
threshed out at an arbitration hearin%.
he &,: a&' a8,&',' A1+.25, 1289# did not retain the
for"ulation of the ori%inal a- .+ 91o?, 34 +0, o1./.&a5
>,1-.o& .&+o +:o -,&+,&2,-. In the =1-+ -,&+,&2,, it
reco%ni*ed the pri"ac! of the visitorial and enforce"ent
po&ers of the Secretar! of 'abor over the ter"s of ,rticles
-.J and .-6. In other &ords, the Secretar! or his dele%ate
can inspect &ithout bein% fettered b! the li"itations under
these provisions. he -,2o&' -,&+,&2, is devoted &holl!
to the issuance of &rits of e1ecution to enforce the issued
orders. 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 not
considered durin% the inspection.
hus, under the a"ended ,rticle -./(b), as &ritten, the
po&er of the Secretar! of 'abor or his representative to
enforce the labor standards provisions of the 'abor Code
and 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 still
e1ists. 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 'abor
Code. 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 on
the caseI
-2
the Director can at least full! deter"ine &hether
or not e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1ists.
he present =e1ceptin% clause= (&hich refers onl! to the
issuance of a &rit of e1ecution) su%%ests that after the labor
e"plo!"ent o;cer has issued its inspection rulin%, the
Secretar! "a! issue a &rit to e1ecute the rulin%, unless the
e"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 of
inspection.= State otherwise& there is now a winow in the
law for i!!eiate e$ecution pening appeal when the
e!plo"ers ob'ection oes not relate to ocu!entar"
evience that has not been raise in the course of
inspection.
Phat happens to the inspection rulin% itself is %overned b!
the ne1t para%raph of ,rticle -./(b) &hich e1pressl!
provides for an appeal to the Secretar! of 'abor, &ith the
re$uire"ent for the #lin% of a cash or suret! bond to perfect
the appeal. his re$uire"ent, stated &ithout distinctions or
$uali#cations, should appl! to all issues, &hether on the
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee issue or on the inspection #ndin%s.
, necessar! $uestion that arises is the status of the current
rule i"ple"entin% ,rticle -./(b) as a"ended, &hich is an
e1act cop! of the la& e1cept for the addition of a ne&
sentence 0 =. . In such cases the Re%ional Director shall
endorse the dispute to the appropriate re%ional branch of
the National 'abor Relations Co""ission for proper action.=
his rule antedates the R.,. 66:4 a"end"ent but is not
necessaril! ne%ated b! the Secretar!9s e1panded po&ers
because of the li"itation that the Secretar! or his
representation has +urisdiction onl! &here an e"plo!"ent
relationship e1ists. Properl! understood, it should no& be
read as a con#r"ation of the Secretar!9s e1panded po&er
that includes the full authorit! to rule on &hether e"plo!er0
e"plo!ee relationship e1ists. It is onl! upon a rulin% that no
such relationship e1ists that the Secretar! and the Director
are divested of +urisdiction to rule on the "onetar! clai".
he Secretar! or the Director "ust then endorse the
"onetar! clai" to the N'RC instead of dis"issin% it for lacC
of +urisdiction. Ko&ever, &hatever action the Director taCes
is a "atter that can be appealed to the Secretar! of 'abor
pursuant to the second para%raph of ,rticle -./(b). In the
present case, the petitioner did appeal as allo&ed b! ,rticle
-./(b), but unfortunatel! ble& its chance to secure a revie&
on appeal before the Secretar! of 'abor as it failed to post
the cash or suret! bond that the present la& e1pressl!
re$uires.
his readin% of the la& totall! invalidates the ponencia9s
position in the present case that the Re%ional Director and
the Secretar! of 'abor have no +urisdiction to issue an
enforce"ent order and the case should have been turned
over to the N'RC for co"pulsor! arbitration after the
petitioner clai"ed or has sho&n pri"a facie that no
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1isted.
he ponencia "aCes a #nal desperate eHort to circu"vent
the plain i"port of Section -./(b) and its histor!
b!a44,a5.&/ +o a&' 31/.&/ +0, 3-, o7 +0, 2o88o& 5a:
.& 1,a'.&/ +0, DOLE S,21,+a1y;- >.-.+o1.a5 a&'
,&7o12,8,&+ 4o:,1- 3&',1 +0, 2.+,' S,2+.o&. he
ponencia su%%ests a =functional or pra%"atic anal!sis= to
ascertain the +urisdictional boundaries of ad"inistrative
a%encies. Ph! the co""on la& approach is to be used in
the Philippines9 statutor! re%i"e is pu**lin%. Ph! there is a
need for such an anal!sis to understand the ter"s of
Section -./(b) and the 'abor Code, is "ore so. he
su%%ested co""on la& approach is si"pl! irrelevant and
deserves no further discussion.
Petitioner <ailed to Validl! ,ppeal to the Secretar!
he parties do not dispute that the re"ed! fro" the
Re%ional Director9s rulin% is an appeal to the Secretar!, as
the petitioner did indeed appeal to the O;ce of the
Secretar! of 'abor. he ponencia, ho&ever, rules that the
DO'E erred in declarin% that the appeal &as not perfectedI
the ponencia holds that the Deed of ,ssi%n"ent of 8anC
Deposits that the petitioner sub"itted in lieu of a cash or
suret! bond substantiall! satis#ed the re$uire"ents of
Section -./ (b) of the 'abor Code. his provision states?
1 1 1
,n order issued b! the dul! authori*ed representative of the
Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent under this article "a!
be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a
"onetar! a&ard, an appeal b! the e"plo!er "a! be
perfected onl! upon the postin% of a cash or suret! bond
issued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan! dul! accredited b!
the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent in the a"ount
e$uivalent to the "onetar! a&ard in the order appealed
fro".
he Deed of ,ssi%n"ent
-6
&as acco"panied b! a 'etter
,%ree"ent bet&een Vueen Cit! Develop"ent 8anC and the
petitioner coverin% Platinu" Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40
/0444:/0@,
-/
and a Cash Voucher
-J
issued b! the petitioner
indicatin% the a"ount of P.4:,6.2.:4 deposited at the
banC. he Deed of ,ssi%n"ent reads?
DEED O< ,SSI7NMEN O< 8,NT DEPOSI
PIK SPECI,' POPER O< ,ORNEN
TNOP ,'' MEN 8N KESE PRESENS?
hat, I, 7REM,N 8. SO',NE in "! capacit! as Station
Mana%er of DNM< Cebu Cit!, PEOP'E9S 8RO,DC,SIN7
SERVICES, INC., a corporation dul! authori*ed and e1istin%
under and b! virtue of the la&s of the Philippines, for and in
consideration of the su" of PESOS? PO KONDRED KREE
KOOS,ND SEVEN KONDRED PENN SIU PESOS D :4>-44
(Php.4:,6.2.:4), Phil. Currenc!, C,SK 8OND 7O,R,NEE
for the "onetar! a&ard in favor to the PlaintiH in the 'abor
Case docCeted as 'SED Case No. RO6440.44:04J0CI04J-,
no& pendin% appeal.
hat Respondent0,ppellant do hereb! undertaCe to
%uarantee available and su;cient funds covered b!
Platinu" Savin%s Deposit (PSD) No. 4-40/0444:/0@ of
PEOP'E9S 8RO,DC,SIN7 SERVICES, INC., in the a"ount of
PESOS? PO KONDRED KREE KOOS,ND SEVEN KONDRED
PENN PESOS D :4>-44 ON'N (Php.4:,6.2.:4) pa!able to
PlaintiH0,ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
Re%ional O;ce VII at Vueen Cit! Develop"ent 8anC, Cebu
8ranch, Sancian%Co St., Cebu Cit!.
It is understood that the banC 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 PlaintiH0
,ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent Re%ional
O;ce VII until such ti"e that a Prit of E1ecution shall be
ordered b! the ,ppellate O;ce.
<ORKER, this Deed of ,ssi%n"ent is li"ited to the principal
a"ount of PESOS? PO KONDRED KREE KOOS,ND SEVEN
KONDRED PENN SIU PESOS D :4>-44 fro" the said
Deposit &ill be for the account holder.
IN PINESS PKEREO<, I have hereto a;1ed "! si%nature
this -/th da! of 5une, .44@, in the Cit! of Cebu, Philippines.
PEOP'E9S 8RO,DC,SIN7 SERVICES, INC.
8!?
(S%d.)
7REM,N 8. SO',NE
Station Mana%er
he ponencia9s position is le%all! incorrect as it convenientl!
fails to consider both the &ordin% of the la& and the spirit
that led to this &ordin%. he la& e1pressl! states that an
appeal is perfected =onl!= upon the postin% of a cash or
suret! bondI
.4
no other docu"ent or instru"ent is allo&ed.
Phat a%%ravates the ponencia9s disre%ard of the e1press
&ordin% of the la& is the petitioner9s Cno&led%e, on record,
that a cash or suret! bond is re$uired. his Cno&led%e is
clearl! de"onstrated b! the petitioner9s "otion for
e1tension of ti"e to #le appeal, #led on 5une -6, .44@, on
the %round of fortuitous event.
.-
he fortuitous event
referred to &as the South Sea Suret! and Insurance Co.9s
alle%ed lacC of the re$uired le%al for"s for the bondI to
support the "otion, the suret! co"pan! co""itted to issue
the bond the follo&in% da!, 5une -/, .44@. <urther, in a
sub"ission entitled =,ppeal= #led &ith the DO'E Re%ional
O;ce on 5une -/, .44@, the petitioner "ade the follo&in%
state"ent?
,cco"pan!in% this ,PPE,' are [
-. ,PPE,' MEMOR,NDOMI
.. Cash bond pursuant to the speci#cations in
RESO'OIONI
:. Proof of pa!"ent of re$uired #lin% fee.
No cash bond &as ho&ever sub"itted, sho&in% that the
petitioner &as less than candid &hen it "ade its clai". It
&as under these circu"stances [ i.e., the petitioner9s
Cno&led%e that a cash or suret! bond is re$uiredI the
absence of a cash bondI and "isrepresentation that a cash
bond &as attached &hen there &as none [ that the DO'E
Secretar! dis"issed the appeal. he C, correctl! supported
the Secretar!9s action and ruled that the Secretar! did not
act &ith %rave abuse of discretion in dis"issin% the appeal.
Separatel! fro" these factual incidents are reasons
proceedin% fro" established +urisprudence as the
indispensabilit! 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&"aCers to "aCe the bond an
indispensable re$uisite for the perfection of an appeal b!
the e"plo!er is underscored b! the provision that an appeal
"a! be perfected =onl! upon the postin% of a cash bond=.
he &ord =onl!= "aCes it perfectl! clear that the
',PM,TERS intended the postin% of a cash or suret! bond
b! the e"plo!er to be the e1clusive "eans b! &hich an
e"plo!er9s appeal "a! be considered co"plete.
1 1 1
Evidentl!, the postin% of a cash or suret! bond is "andator!.
,nd the perfection of an appeal in the "anner and &ithin
the period prescribed b! la& is not onl! "andator! but
+urisdictional. Ae"phasis suppliedB.
Interestin%l!, the sa"e adverb [ =onl!= [ that this Court
construed in 8or+a, is the ver! sa"e adverb that ,rticle
-./(b) of the 'abor Code contains. hus, this ,rticle states
in part [ an appeal b! the e"plo!er "a! be
perfectedonl! upon the postin% of a cash or suret! bond
issued b! a reputable bondin% co"pan! dul! accredited b!
the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent. ,ll these
safe%uards &ould be for nau%ht if the ponencia9s
understandin% of the re$uire"ents for the perfection of an
appeal &ill prevail. o reiterate, the bond "ust be in cash or
a 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&I the bondin%
co"pan! "ust be accredited b! the Secretar!. =Cash,= on
the other hand, &hether in la! or its le%al si%ni#cation,
"eans a su" of "one!I cash bail (the sense in &hich a cash
bond is used) is a su" of "one! posted b! a cri"inal
defendant to ensure his presence in court, used in place of a
suret! bond and real estate.
.:
Ko& the afore$uoted Deed of ,ssi%n"ent can satisf! the
above le%al re$uire"ents re$uires an act of bendin% that
%oes be!ond the intent of the la&. Phat the Deed e1tends is
a %uarantee usin% a su" of "one! placed &ith a banC, not
&ith the DO'E. he %uarantee is "ade b! a certain 7re"an
8. Solante, described in the Deed as Station Mana%er
si%nin% for and in behalf of the petitioner, a corporation.
here is no indication an!&here, ho&ever, that Mr. Solante
&as authori*ed b! the 8oard of the corporation to co""it
the corporate funds as a %uarantee.
.@
his lacC of clear
authorit! is replete &ith le%al i"plications that render the
Deed of ,ssi%n"ent less than the cash bond that it purports
to beI a"on% others, these i"plications i"pose on the DO'E
added burdens that a cash bond is desi%ned to avoid. Onder
,rticle -/6/ of the Civil Code, a special po&er of attorne! is
re$uired to bind a principal as %uarantor or suret!. Onder
Section .: and :3 of the Corporation Code of the
Philippines, authorit! over corporate funds is e1ercised b!
the 8oard of Directors &ho, in the absence of an appropriate
dele%ation of authorit!, are the onl! ones &ho can act for
and in behalf of the corporation. Onder ,rticle -@4: of the
Civil Code, a contract entered into &ithout an! le%al
authorit! or le%al representation is unenforceable. o state
the obvious, all these are stu"blin% blocCs 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 the
condition that =said su" cannot be &ithdra&n b! the
PlaintiH0,ppellee>Depart"ent of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
Re%ional O;ce VII until such ti"e that a Prit of E1ecution
shall be ordered b! the ,ppellate O;ce.= Phat 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 appeal
has been #led. hus, the DO'E Secretar! herself has no
authorit! to call on the %uarantee. Even Re%ional O;ce VII
cannot, until a &rit of e1ecution is ordered b! the ,ppellate
O;ce. Phat this ,ppellate O;ce is, is a%ain not certain and
can "ean the hi%hest appellate levels all the &a! up to this
Court. ,nother uncertaint! is the banC9s co""it"ent to the
%uarantee as the Deed onl! contains a =CON<ORME= si%ned
b! the O;cer0in0Char%e of the Vueen Cit! Develop"ent
8anC, not the e1act ter"s of the banC9s o&n co""it"ent to
the DO'E in &hose favor an! bond should be "ade. Phat is
certain about the Deed is provided in its penulti"ate
para%raph= =an! interest to be earned fro" said Deposit &ill
be for the account holder.=
he Platinu" Savin%s Deposit "entioned in the Deed is
itself ver! interestin% as it carries the headin% =Deposit
Insured b! PDIC Ma1i"u" ,"ount of Php -44,444.44. Net,
the a"ount of deposit is stated to be Php .4:,6.2.:4, &ith
interest rate of @..3Y, and "aturit! date of 5ul! -J, .44@
(:- da!s). hus, if an!thin% happened to the depositar!
banC, in the &a! that banCs under the 'e%ac! %roup of
banCs currentl! has proble"s, the DO'E Re%ional O;ce VII
&ould be holdin% an e"pt! %uarantee and &ould still have
to #le a clai" &ith the PDIC for the "a1i"u" a"ount
covered.
o be sure, these are not the ter"s the fra"ers of the la&
intended &hen the! re$uired that perfection of appeal
re$uires the #lin% =onl!= of a cash or suret! bond.
EHectivel!, &hat the Deed of ,ssi%n"ent and its allied
docu"ents have co""itted to support the perfection of the
petitioner9s appeal, &ith the intent to pass it oH as a cash
bond, is an a"ount &hose control is not clearl! &ith the
DO'E and &hich "a! re$uire a lot of clari#cations and prior
actions before it can be used to pa! the "onetar! clai"
secured b! the bond. his is &hat the ponencia &ishes to
reco%ni*e as a substitute for the cash bond re$uire"ent of
the la&. o sa! the least, a rulin% fro" this Court of this
tenor &ould severel! and adversel! aHect the eHectiveness
and e;cienc! of the DO'E9s handlin% of appeals before itI it
&ould be a precedent that eHectivel! ne%ates the
certainties the la& &ishes to foster, and &ould be a
&elco"e develop"ent to those &ho &ould &ish to sub"it
%uarantees other than the cash or suret! bonds the la&
de"ands.
I sub"it that the deter"ination of &hat satis#es the bondin%
re$uire"ent in labor appeals is a "atter for the Secretar! of
'abor and E"plo!"ent to deter"ine in the #rst instance,
and should be free fro" +udicial interference, provided that
the Secretar! does not substantiall! depart fro" the letter
and intent of the la&. Once the Secretar! [ the entit! &ith
pri"ar! +urisdiction over labor appeals [ has ruled that a
%uarantee other than the strict cash and suret! bonds that
the la& re$uires is not su;cient, then this Court should be
bound b! the deter"ination in the absence of an! attendant
%rave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretar!.
Other&ise stated, this Court cannot and should not second
%uess or in hindsi%ht control an ad"inistrative tribunal in
the e1ercise of its po&ers, even =in the interest of +ustice,=
&here there is no attendant %rave abuse of discretion
a"ountin% to lacC or e1cess of +urisdiction. Onl! in this
"anner can this Court accord due respect to the
constitutional separation of po&ers that it is dut!0bound to
enforce.
<ailure of the C, to revie& the evidence
In li%ht of the above discussions, the C, could not have
been &ron% in concludin% that no %rave abuse of discretion
attended the C,9s conclusion that the petitioner indeed
failed to perfect its appeal before the Secretar!. Over and
above this ob+ection, ho&ever, the ponencia, faults the C,
for not e1a"inin% the evidence to deter"ine &hether the
conclusions of the DO'E in the assailed orders &ere
supported b! the evidence presented. It #nds that the C,
focused instead on a %eneral discussion of due process and
the +urisdiction of the Re%ional Director.
'et it be clari#ed that the Secretar! did not need to %o into a
full discussion of the "erits of the appeal because no appeal
&as ever perfected. he C, understandabl! focused on this
aspect of the case as it renders "oot all other issues. o the
C,9s credit it "ade sure that there &as no denial of due
process that tainted the DO'E decisions and it found that
there &as none. In this li%ht, the C, co"plied &ith &hat the
Constitution re$uires as a decision "aCer is onl! dut!0bound
to state the facts and the la& on &hich its decision is
based.
.3
In this respect, it should be considered that the petitioner
&as %iven ever! opportunit! to be heard at the DO'E
Re%ional O;ce. he plant inspection &as conducted at the
petitioner9s o&n establish"ent &here its o;cials &ere
present. No co"plaint e1ists re%ardin% this aspect of the
case. , notice of inspection results &as dul! sent to the
petitioner, &hich it contested. hus, the Re%ional Director
directed the parties to #le their position papers on the
inspection results. he parties dul! co"plied, &ith parties
both focusin% on the e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship issue.
In the Order dated <ebruar! .6, .44@, the Director full!
considered the parties9 positions in li%ht of the inspection
results and ruled that there &as e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship. he petitioner reacted b! #lin% a "otion for
reconsideration and a supple"ental "otion for
reconsideration, to &hich additional supportin% e1hibits
&ere attached. hese sub"issions &ere taCen into account
but still failed to convince the Director.
Onfortunatel!, the petitioner e$uated the Re%ional Director9s
failure to rule in its favor to be denial of due process for the
alle%ed failure to consider the evidence it sub"itted. he
C,, of course, notin% the above0described develop"ents in
the case sa& the fallac! of the petitioner9s sub"ission and
dis"issed the petition, thus a;r"in% the DO'E level
decisions.
he Director9s rulin% that the ponencia no& sees as
ob+ectionable states in its "aterial portion?
Onder the said Polic! Instructions, there are t&o (.) t!pes of
e"plo!ees in the broadcast industr!, na"el!? -) =Station
e"plo!ees [ are those &hose services are en%a%ed to
dischar%e functions &hich are usuall! necessar! and
desirable to the operation of the station and &hose
usefulness is not aHected b! chan%es of pro%ra"s, ratin%s
or for"ats and &ho observe nor"al &orCin% hours. hese
shall include e"plo!ees &hose talents, sCills or services are
en%a%ed as such b! the station &ithout particular reference
to an! speci#c pro%ra" or undertaCin%, and are not allo&ed
b! the station to be en%a%ed or hired b! other stations or
persons even if such e"plo!ees do not observe nor"al
&orCin% hours. .) Pro%ra" e"plo!ees [ are those &hose
sCills, talents or services are en%a%ed b! the station for a
particular or speci#c pro%ra" or undertaCin% and &ho are
not re$uired to observe nor"al &orCin% hours such that on
so"e da!s the! &orC for less than ei%ht (/) hours and on
other da!s be!ond the nor"al &orC hours observed b! the
station e"plo!ees and are allo&ed to enter into
e"plo!"ent contracts &ith other persons, stations,
advertisin% a%encies or sponsorin% co"panies. he
en%a%e"ent of pro%ra" e"plo!ees, includin% those hired
b! advertisin% a%encies or sponsorin% co"panies, shall be
under a &ritten contract specif!in%, a"on% other thin%s, the
nature of the &orC to be perfor"ed, rates to pa!, and the
pro%ra"s in &hich the! &ill &orC. 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 that
co"plainant 5andeleon 5ue*an &as hired b! the respondent
as a radio talent>spinner and &orC si1 (2) da!s a &eeC fro"
/?44 ,.M. to 3?44 P.M., Monda! thru Saturda!. It &as the
respondent &ho paid co"plainant9s salar! ever! $uincena
and &as re$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 &ith
the 8roadcast Media Counsel as re$uired. Ke is re$uired to
observe nor"al &orCin% hours that deductions are "ade for
tardiness. herefore, it is cr!stal clear that co"plainant is a
station e"plo!ee rather than a pro%ra" e"plo!ee hence
entitled to all bene#ts appurtenant thereto.
In the "otion for reconsideration that follo&ed, the Director
ruled as follo&s?
<or resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration #led b! the
respondent on March -3, .44@ to the Order of this O;ce
dated <ebruar! .6, .44@ on the %round that due process is
not observed.
he "otion &as set for clari#cator! hearin% on ,pril ., .44@
&herein the parties throu%h their respective counsel
appeared. Counsel for co"plaint asCed for -3 da!s fro"
,pril ., .44@ to #le its co""ent to the Motion for
Reconsideration after &hich the case is sub"itted for
resolution.
Respondent in its Motion for Reconsideration alle%ed to have
been denied due process because it &as not %iven the
opportunit! to e1a"ine the identi#cation card &hich &as not
presented for scrutin! and veri#cation.
he contention sou%ht b! the respondent is &ithout "erit.
he identi#cation card presented b! co"plainant that he
&as an authori*ed Media Representative is not "aterial to
this case nor fatal to respondent9s case. Presentation of
e"plo!"ent records is the burden of e"plo!er and not of
co"plaint &orCer.
Respondent9s passin% the bucC of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship to its dra"a Directors and Producers is of no
"o"ent. 7rantin% &ithout ad"ittin% that herein
co"plainant is indeed under the e"plo! of respondents9
dra"a directors. Such partaCes of a sub0contractin%
relationship &hich &ill not absolve herein respondent fro"
its solidar! liabilit! to co"plainant9s clai"s pursuant to ,rt.
-42 to ,rt. -4J of the 'abor Code.
Correctl! understood, these rulin%s do not indicate in an!
&a! that the petitioner9s evidence &ere not considered. o
be sure, the parties9 various pieces of evidence the parties
sub"itted &ere not all "entioned in these rulin%s. Phat it
does "ention are its #ndin%s fro" the parties9 conWictin%
factual assertions. Interestin%l!, it i"plies that, at least
no"inall!, the respondent &as a pro%ra" e"plo!ee. his is
the rulin%9s concession to the petitioner9s evidence.
Ko&ever, it also asserts that despite this see"in% status,
the respondent &as in fact a station e"plo!ee for the
reasons the rulin% outlined, na"el!? (-) the respondent
initiall! hired the respondent as a radio talent>spinnerI (.)
his &orC &as si1 A2B da!s a &eeC fro" /?44 ,.M. to 3?44 P.M.,
Monda! thru Saturda!I (:) he is re$uired to observe nor"al
&orCin% hours and deductions are "ade for tardinessI (@)
the respondent paid the co"plainant9s salar!
ever! quincenaI (3) the petitioner re$uired the respondent
to si%n pa!rollsI (2) 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!eeI and (6) the petitioner failed to re%ister the
respondent9s e"plo!"ent contract &ith the 8roadcast
Media Counsel as re$uired.
hus vie&ed, the ponencia9s conclusion that the Director did
not consider the petitioner9s evidence is "isplaced. In fact,
the factors the Director pointed out decisivel! sho& that an
e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship e1isted bet&een the
petitioner and the respondent.
Confusion bet&een the DO'E and
the N'RC in resolvin% e"plo!"ent
relationship issues.
,s last point that is hard to leave alone is the ponencia9s
interpretation that the standard laid do&n in the last
sentence of ,rticle -./ (b) of the 'abor Code that the
docu"entar! proofs be =considered in the course of
inspection= applies onl! to issues other than the
funda"ental issue of the e1istence of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee
relationship. , contrar! rule accordin% to the ponencia
&ould lead to controversies on the part of labor o;cials in
resolvin% the issue of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship.
Phat the ponencia apparentl! refers to is that portion of
,rticle -./(b) that &as a"ended b! R.,. 66:4, heretofore
discussed. o reiterate &hat has been stated above, the
=docu"entar! proofs &hich &ere not considered in the
course 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 #rst
sentence of the ,rticle. hus, no &rit "a! i""ediatel! issue
if such ob+ection e1ists. Rather, a full hearin% shall ensue as
in this case &here the Director allo&ed the petitioner to
sub"it evidence as late as the "otion for reconsideration
sta%e. ,fter the Director shall have ruled on all the
sub"itted issues, then a &rit of e1ecution shall issue if no
appeal is taCenI other&ise, an appeal "a! be taCen to the
Secretar!. Onder the Rules, the perfection of an appeal holds
in abe!ance the issuance of a &rit of e1ecution or suspends
one alread! issued.
.2
R.,. 66:4 eHectivel! chan%es this rule
b! %ivin% the authorit! to issue a &rit of e1ecution unless
the =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 of
authorit!, the issue cannot be an!&here else but &ith the
Secretar! &ho has been %ranted visitorial and enforce"ent
po&er &hen an e"plo!"ent relationship e1ists. his %rant
"ust be read &ith the .nd para%raph of the sa"e ,rticle
that identi#es an appeal as the re"ed! to taCe fro" an
inspection decision "ade under the -st para%raph.
<or the ponencia to i"pl! that the N'RC is "ore #tted to
rule on the e"plo!"ent relationship issue "isunderstands
the po&er that ,rticle -./ %rants the Secretar!. It is a full
fact0#ndin% po&er that includes &hatever is necessar! for
the enforce"ent of the %rant, includin% the authorit! to
deter"ine &hen the li"its of the po&er appl! and to call the
parties and hear and decide their sub"issions. <or this
reason, Sections 3(a) and 2 of Depart"ent Order No. 60,,
Series of -JJ3 states?
Sec 3. <ield investi%ation and hearin%. [ (a) In case of
co"plaint inspection &here no proof of co"pliance is
sub"itted b! the e"plo!er after seven (6) calendar da!s
fro" receipt of the inspection results, the Re%ional Director
shall su""on the e"plo!er and the
e"plo!ees>co"plainants to a su""ar! hearin% at the
re%ional o;ce.
1 1 1
Sec. 2. Nature of Proceedin%s. he proceedin%s shall be
su""ar! and non0liti%ious in character. Sub+ect to the
re$uire"ents of due process, the technicalities of la& and
procedure and the rules %overnin% ad"issibilit! and
su;cienc! of evidence obtainin% in the courts of la& shall
not strictl! appl!. he re%ional director or his desi%nated
representative "a!, ho&ever, avail of all reasonable "eans
to ascertain the facts of the controvers! speedil! and
ob+ectivel!, includin% the conduct of ocular inspection and
e1a"ination of &ell0infor"ed persons. Substantial evidence
shall be su;cient to support a decision.
Si%ni#cantl!, the nature of the proceedin%s before the
Re%ional Director is not diHerent fro" the proceedin%s
before the 'abor ,rbiter. Section ., Rule V of the Revised
Rules of Procedure of the National 'abor Relations
Co""ission (.443) provides that?
Section .. Nature of Proceedin%s. he proceedin%s before
the 'abor ,rbiter shall be non0liti%ious in nature. Sub+ect to
the re$uire"ents of due process, the technicalities of la&
and procedure and the rules obtainin% in courts of la& shall
not strictl! appl! thereto. he 'abor ,rbiter "a! avail
hi"self of all reasonable "eans to ascertain the facts of the
controvers! speedil!, includin% the ocular inspection and
e1a"ination of &ell0infor"ed persons.
hus, the vie& that one tribunal has pri"ac! over another
because of the nature of their proceedin%s, the $uantu" of
evidence re$uired, or their level of e1pertise, is "isplaced.
Properl! understood, the structure that ,rticle -./(b)
provides in relation &ith "onetar! clai"s &ithin and
e"plo!"ent relationship, as &ell as the delineation of
po&ers bet&een the Secretar! of 'abor and E"plo!"ent
and the N'RC are not at all co"plicated nor confusin%, and
need not lead to controversies on the part of labor o;cials
in resolvin% the issue of e"plo!er0e"plo!ee relationship, as
the ponencia fears.
ARTURO D. BRION
,ssociate 5ustice