Case Summary (G.R. No. 179652)
Petitioner and Respondents
• Petitioner: People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. (Bombo Radyo Philippines, Inc.)
• Respondents: Secretary of Labor and Employment; DOLE Regional Director, Region VII; Jandeleon Juezan
Key Dates and Procedural History
• September 18, 2003 – Juezan’s complaint filed with DOLE Region VII.
• September 23, 2003 – Plant inspection conducted; petitioner denies employment relationship.
• February 27, 2004 – Regional Director’s Order finds an employer-employee relationship and awards P203,726.30.
• May 24, 2004 – Reconsideration denied.
• January 27, 2005 – Acting DOLE Secretary dismisses appeal for failure to post cash or surety bond.
• October 26, 2006 – Court of Appeals dismisses petitioner’s certiorari petition.
• May 8, 2009 – Supreme Court decision under review.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990).
• Labor Code of the Philippines, Articles 128(b), 129, 217 (as amended by Republic Act No. 7730).
• Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases (DOLE Secretary’s Rules, 1987).
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 (certiorari) and Rule 45 (review on certiorari).
Findings of Fact
During the September 2003 inspection, the Labor Inspector recorded allegations of benefit diminution and noted petitioner’s denial of any employer-employee relationship, presenting photocopies of cash vouchers, billing statements, contracts for specific undertakings, and production summaries. Petitioner failed to comply with directives to rectify alleged violations. In summary proceedings, respondent maintained he worked regularly from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., six days a week, under petitioner’s control and payroll system. He produced an identification card and a station manager’s certification of employment and salary. Petitioner countered with documents showing respondent was hired per drama production by third-party producers.
Jurisdictional Issue: DOLE vs. NLRC
Petitioner argued from the outset that no employer-employee relationship existed and thus the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), not DOLE, had jurisdiction under Articles 217 and 128 of the Labor Code. It maintained that disputes over the very existence of such relationship should be resolved only by the NLRC.
Analysis of Article 128(b) Powers
Under the amended Article 128(b), DOLE’s visitorial and enforcement power applies “in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists.” The Supreme Court emphasized that:
- The Secretary or authorized representatives may fully determine compliance with labor standards, including issuing compliance orders, provided an employer-employee relationship is established.
- This power is limited; if the employer contests inspection findings with documentary proofs not considered during inspection, DOLE must refrain from enforcing orders via writs of execution.
- A preliminary, incidental determination of employment status by DOLE does not supplant the NLRC’s jurisdiction; rather, it determines whether DOLE may exercise its enforcement powers.
Evaluation of Substantial Evidence
The Court held that the Regional Director’s findings lacked substantial evidence and arbitrarily disregarded petitioner’s proof:
• Cash vouchers, billing statements and “employment for specific undertaking” contracts tended to show respondent was engaged per production, not as an employee.
• The Labor Inspector made no further inquiry into payroll records, rolls of employees or other staff interviews.
• The Regional Director’s order was grounded almost verbatim on respondent’s self-serving statements and uncorroborated ID card and certification, failing to independently verify documentary evidence favorable to petitioner.
• Petitioner’s denial of employment was consistent, and a prima facie showing of no such relationship should have prompted referral to the NLRC.
Appeal Bond Requirement
DOLE Secretary’s January 27, 2005 Order dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to post the mandatory cash or surety bond under Article 128(b). Petitioner had submitted a Deed of Assignment over a bank deposit, a letter agreement and a cash voucher purportedly in lieu of bond. The Court held that:
• Article 128(b) requires “only” a cash or surety bond
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 179652)
Facts and Background
- On 18 September 2003, Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint with DOLE Regional Office VII against Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc., alleging illegal deductions, non-payment of service incentive leave, 13th-month pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, illegal diminution of benefits, delayed wage payments, and lack of SSS, Pag-IBIG and PhilHealth coverage.
- A plant-level inspection was conducted on 23 September 2003 by a DOLE Labor Inspector.
- In the Inspection Report, the Inspector noted “non-diminution of benefits” and recorded management’s denial of any employer-employee relationship.
- In the Notice of Inspection Results, the management representative asserted that Juezan was a per-drama talent under specific‐undertaking contracts, presented photocopies of cash vouchers, billing statements, and contracts, and denied control or supervision over Juezan.
Administrative Proceedings
- Petitioner was ordered to rectify alleged violations within five days but failed to do so.
- A summary investigation ensued; both parties were directed to file position papers.
- DOLE Regional Director Rodolfo M. Sabulao issued an Order (27 February 2004) ruling that:
- Juezan was an employee working six days a week, 8 a.m.–5 p.m., paid semi-monthly and required to sign payrolls.
- The employment contract was not registered with the Broadcast Media Council.
- Juezan was therefore entitled to his money claims totaling ₱203,726.30.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Petitioner appealed to the DOLE Secretary; the appeal was dismissed by the Acting Secretary (27 January 2005) for failure to post the statutory cash or surety bond, petitioner having submitted a Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposit instead.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari (C.A. G.R. CEB-SP No. 00855) before the Court of Appeals, alleging:
- Denial of due process by the DOLE Director and Secretary.
- Lack of employer-employee relationship.
- DOLE’s lack of jurisdiction over claims exceeding ₱5,000.
- Invalid appeal bond requirement.
- The Court of Appeals Decision (26 October 2006) held:
- No due process violation—petitioner had opportunity to be heard via motion for reconsideration.
- Acting Secretary had visitorial and enforcement power over any monetary claim, irrespective of amount, after RA 7730 repealed Article 29’s ₱5,000 limit.
- The Court of Appeals Resolution (26 June 2