G.R. No.
179652 May 8, 2009
PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING (BOMBO RADYO PHILS.,
INC.), Petitioner, defendant
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE REGION VII,
and JANDELEON JUEZAN, Respondents, plaintiff
Facts:
Respondent Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner
People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc)
for illegal deduction, non-payment of service incentive leave,
13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day and
illegal diminution of benefits, delayed payment of wages and
non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth before the
DOLE. In the Inspection Report Form conducted by DOLE
respondent Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc denied that there is an
employer-employee relationship with the complainant since
respondent Juenzan is a drama talent hired on a per drama "
participation basis."
DOLE regional director Sabulao ruled that respondent Juezan
is an employee of petitioner Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc, and
that the former is entitled to his money claims amounting
to P203,726.30. Which was affirmed by DOLE acting secretary
Upon appeal to CA, petitioner Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc
reiterated its claim that there was no employer-employee
relationship between it and respondent Juezan because it
was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised
and disciplined respondent Juezan. It also added that the case
was beyond the jurisdiction of the DOLE and should have
been considered by the labor arbiter because respondent
Juenzan’s claim exceeded P5,000.00.
CA dismiss the petition file by petitioner Bombo Radyo Phils.,
Inc and ruled that the DOLE Secretary had the power to order
and enforce compliance with labor standard laws irrespective
of the amount of individual claims because the limitation
imposed by Article 29 of the Labor Code had been repealed
by RA No. 7730.
Issue:
WON NLRC and not the DOLE Secretary, has jurisdiction over
respondent Juezan’s claim
Ruling: Yes.
Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act
7730 states that –
Article 128 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions
of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the
contrary, and in cases where the relationship of
employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of
Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representatives shall have the power to issue
compliance orders to give effect to the labor
standards provisions of this Code and other
labor legislation based on the findings of labor
employment and enforcement officers or
industrial safety engineers made in the course
of inspection. The Secretary or his duly
authorized representative shall issue writs of
execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders, except in cases
where the employer contests the findings of the
labor employment and enforcement officer and
raises issues supported by documentary proofs
which were not considered in the course of
inspection.
xxx
SC said that the provision is explicit that the visitorial and
enforcement power of the DOLE comes into play only "in
cases when the relationship of employer-employee still
exists."
The clause "in cases where the relationship of employer-
employee still exists" signifies that the employer-employee
relationship must have existed even before the controversy.
Necessarily, the DOLE’s power does not apply in 2 instances,
namely: (a) where the employer-employee relationship has
ceased; and (b) where no such relationship has ever existed.
Clearly the law accords a prerogative to the NLRC over the
claim when the employer-employee relationship has
terminated or such relationship has not arisen at all. In the
second situation especially, the existence of an employer-
employee relationship is a matter which is not easily
determinable from an ordinary inspection, because the
elements of such a relationship are not verifiable from a mere
ocular examination.
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a
statutory prerequisite to and a limitation on the power of the
Secretary of Labor. The rationale underlying this limitation is
to eliminate the prospect of competing conclusions of the
Secretary of Labor and the NLRC, on a matter of questions of
fact and law, which is best resolved by the quasi-judicial body,
NRLC, rather than an administrative official of the executive
branch of the government.
Therefore, since evidence offered puts in doubt the existence
of employer-employee relationship, DOLE should have
referred respondent Juezan to the NLRC for the proper
dispensation of his claims.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Order of the then Acting Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment denying petitioner’s
appeal, and the Orders of the Director, DOLE Regional Office
No. VII, are ANNULLED. The complaint against petitioner is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 179652 March 6, 2012
PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING SERVICE (BOMBO RADYO PHILS.,
INC.), Petitioner,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE REGION VII,
and JANDELEON JUEZAN, Respondents.
Facts:
In the 2009 decision, SC said that there was no employer-
employee relationship between petitioner Jauenzan and
respondent Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc. In the 2009 decision, SC
also said that while the DOLE may make a determination of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this
function is not co-extensive with the visitorial and
enforcement power provided in Art. 128(b) of the Labor
Code, as amended by RA 7730. The NLRC is still the primary
agency tasked to determine the existence of an employer-
employee relationship. This was the interpretation of the
clause "in cases where the relationship of employer-
employee still exists" in Art. 128(b)
Hence, PAO filed a Motion for Clarification of Decision as to
when the visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE be
not considered as co-extensive with the power to determine
the existence of an employer-employee relationship
Issue:
May the DOLE make a determination of whether or not an
employer-employee relationship exists, and if so, to what
extent?
Ruling: Yes.
Art. 129, and if the amount involved exceeds PhP 5,000, the
jurisdiction is with the labor arbiter, under Art. 217. However,
despite the wording of Art. 128(b), this would only apply in
the course of regular inspections undertaken by the DOLE.
In conclusion, if a complaint is brought before the DOLE to
give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor
Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the
DOLE that there is an existing employer-employee
relationship, the DOLE exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion
of the NLRC. If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-
employee relationship, the jurisdiction is with the NLRC. If a
complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a
claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is with the Labor
Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor Code. If a complaint is
filed with the NLRC, and there is still an existing employer-
employee relationship, the jurisdiction is with DOLE .
In the present case, since SC finds that there was no
employer-employee relationship between petitioner
Jauenzan and respondent Bombo Radyo Phils., and that
respondent Juenzan failed to prove the existence of an
employer-employee relationship. The DOLE had no
jurisdiction over the case, as there was no employer-
employee relationship present. Thus, the dismissal of the
complaint against petitioner is proper.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of this Court is hereby AFFIRMED,
with the MODIFICATION that in the exercise of the DOLE’s
visitorial and enforcement power, the Labor Secretary or the
latter’s authorized representative shall have the power to
determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, to the exclusion of the NLRC. SO
ORDERED.

SC said that no limitation in the law was placed upon the

power of the DOLE to determine the existence of an
employer-employee relationship. No procedure was laid
down where the DOLE would only make a preliminary finding,
and that the power was primarily held by the NLRC.

The DOLE, in determining the existence of an employer-

employee relationship, has a set of guidelines to follow, the
same guide the courts themselves use. The elements to
determine the existence of an employment relationship are:
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; (4) the
employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. The use
of this test is not solely limited to the NLRC. The DOLE
Secretary, or his or her representatives, can utilize the same
test, even in the course of inspection, making use of the same
evidence that would have been presented before the NLRC.

Also SC noted that despite Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as

amended by RA 7730, there is still a threshold amount set by
Arts. 129 and 217 of the Labor Code when money claims are
involved, i.e., that if it is for PhP 5,000 and below, the
jurisdiction is with the regional director of the DOLE, under