PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING (BOMBO RADYO PHILS.
, WITH THE SC: petitioner argues that the National Labor Relations
INC.), Petitioner,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE REGION VII,
and JANDELEON JUEZAN, Respondents.
FACTS: The instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assails the decision
and the resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The petition traces its origins to a complaint filed by Jandeleon Juezan
(respondent) against People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. (Bombo Radyo
Phils., Inc) (petitioner) 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 (non-diminution of benefits in the amount
allegedly 6K) before the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE)Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City.2 On the basis of the complaint,
the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection on 23 September 2003. Labor
Inspector wrote under the heading “Findings/Recommendations” “non-
diminution of benefits” and “Note: Respondent deny employer-employee
relationship with the complainant- see Notice of Inspection results.”
PETITIONER’S POSITION: Management representative informed that
complainant is a drama talent hired on a per drama ” participation basis”
hence no employer-employeeship [sic] existed between them. As proof of
this, management presented photocopies of cash vouchers, billing statement,
employments of specific undertaking (a contract between the talent director
& the complainant), summary of billing of drama production etc. They (mgt.)
has [sic] not control of the talent if he ventures into another contract w/ other
broadcasting industries.
RULING OF DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR: respondent is an employee of
petitioner, and that the former is entitled to his money claims amounting
toP203,726.30. MR denied; Appeal with the DOLE Secretary, dismissed the
appeal on the ground that petitioner did not post a cash or surety bond and
instead submitted a Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposit.
APPEAL WITH THE CA: claiming that it was denied due process when the
DOLE Secretary disregarded the evidence it presented and failed to give it
the opportunity to refute the claims of respondent. Petitioner maintained that
there is no employer-employee relationship had ever existed between it and
respondent because it was the drama directors and producers who paid,
supervised and disciplined respondent. It also added that the case was
beyond the jurisdiction of the DOLE and should have been considered by
the labor arbiter because respondent’s claim exceeded P5,000.00. CA denied.
Commission (NLRC), and not the DOLE Secretary, has jurisdiction over
respondent’s claim, in view of Articles 217 and 128 of the Labor Code.
RESPONDENT’S POSITION: respondent posits that the Court of Appeals
did not abuse its discretion. He invokes Republic Act No. 7730, which
“removes the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his
duly authorized representatives, from the effects of the restrictive provisions
of Article 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, regarding the confinement of
jurisdiction based on the amount of claims.”; and wrong mode of appeal.
ISSUE: WON the Secretary of Labor have the power to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.
HELD: No To resolve this pivotal issue, one must look into the extent of the
visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE found in Article 128 (b) of the
Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 7730. It reads:
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 xxx
The provision is quite explicit that the visitorial and enforcement power
of the DOLE comes into play only “in cases when the relationship of
employer-employee still exists.” Of course, a person’s entitlement to labor
standard benefits under the labor laws presupposes the existence of
employer-employee relationship in the first place.The clause signifies that
the employer-employee relationship must have existed even before the
emergence of the controversy. Necessarily, the DOLE’s power does not
apply in two instances, namely: (a) where the employer-employee
relationship has ceased; and (b) where no such relationship has ever
existed.
The first situation is categorically covered by Sec. 3, Rule 11 of the Rules on
the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases15 issued by the DOLE Secretary.
It reads:
Rule II MONEY CLAIMS ARISING FROM COMPLAINT/ROUTINE
INSPECTION
Sec. 3. Complaints where no employer-employee relationship actually exists.
Where employer-employee relationship no longer exists by reason of the fact
that it has already been severed, claims for payment of monetary benefits fall
within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor
arbiters. Accordingly, if on the face of the complaint, it can be
ascertained that employer-employee relationship no longer exists, the
case, whether accompanied by an allegation of illegal dismissal, shall
immediately be endorsed by the Regional Director to the appropriate
branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
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. The reason is obvious. In the second situation especially, the
existence of an employer-employee relationship is a matter which is not
easily determinable from an ordinary inspection, necessarily so, because the
elements of such a relationship are not verifiable from a mere ocular
examination. The determination of which should be comprehensive and
intensive and therefore best left to the specialized quasi-judicial body
that is the NLRC.
It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its visitorial and
enforcement power somehow has to make a determination of the existence of
an employer-employee relationship. Such prerogatival determination,
however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement power
itself. Indeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and
collateral to the DOLE’s primary function of enforcing labor standards
provisions. The determination of the existence of employer-employee
relationship is still primarily lodged with the NLRC.
Thus, before the DOLE may exercise its powers under Article 128, two
important questions must be resolved: (1) Does the employer-employee
relationship still exist, or alternatively, was there ever an employer-employee
relationship to speak of; and (2) Are there violations of the Labor Code or of
any labor law?
A mere assertion of absence of employer-employee relationship does not
deprive the DOLE of jurisdiction over the claim under Article 128 of the
Labor Code. At least a prima facie showing of such absence of relationship,
as in this case, is needed to preclude the DOLE from the exercise of its
power.
Without a doubt, petitioner, since the inception of this case had been
consistent in maintaining that respondent is not its employee. Certainly,
a preliminary determination, based on the evidence offered, and noted
by the Labor Inspector during the inspection as well as submitted during
the proceedings before the Regional Director puts in genuine doubt the
existence of employer-employee relationship. From that point on, the
prudent recourse on the part of the DOLE should have been to refer
respondent to the NLRC for the proper dispensation of his
claims.Furthermore, as discussed earlier, even the evidence relied on by the
Regional Director in his order are mere self-serving declarations of
respondent, and hence cannot be relied upon as proof of employer-employee
relationship.
Petition GRANTED.
Other Issues (Just in case it will be asked, mahaba2 ung case)
 Aside from lack of jurisdiction, there is another cogent reason to to set
aside the Regional Director’s 27 February 2004 Order. A careful study
of the case reveals that the said Order, which found respondent as an
employee of petitioner and directed the payment of respondent’s money
claims, is not supported by substantial evidence, and was even made in
disregard of the evidence on record.
 Even if the labor inspector had noted petitioner’s manifestation and
documents in the Notice of Inspection Results, it is clear that he did not
give much credence to said evidence, as he did not find the need to
investigate the matter further. The labor inspector could have exerted a
bit more effort and looked into petitioner’s payroll, for example, or its
roll of employees, or interviewed other employees in the premises.
 The Court further examined the records and discovered to its dismay that
even the Regional Director turned a blind eye to the evidence presented
by petitioner and relied instead on the self-serving claims of respondent.
REPONDENT’S CLAIM IN HIS POSITION PAPER: hired by petitioner in
September 1996 as a radio talent/spinner, working from 8:00 am until 5 p.m.,
six days a week, on a gross rate of P60.00 per script, earning an average
of P15,0000.00 per month, payable on a semi-monthly basis xxx In support
of his position paper, respondent attached a photocopy of an identification
card purportedly issued by petitioner, bearing respondent’s picture and name
with the designation “Spinner”; at the back of the I.D., the following is
written: ” This certifies that the card holder is a duly Authorized MEDIA
Representative of BOMBO RADYO PHILIPPINES …
Certificates were also submitted by respondent to support his claim.
EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP: Furthermore, respondent’s pieces of evidence—the
identification card and the certification issued by petitioner’s Greman
Solante— are not even determinative of an employer-employee relationship.
The certification, issued upon the request of respondent, specifically stated
that “MR. JANDELEON JUEZAN is a program employee of PEOPLE’S
BROADCASTING SERVICES, INC. (DYMF- Bombo Radyo Cebu),” it is process, but so also where other special circumstances warrant immediate
not therefore “crystal clear that complainant is a station employee rather than and more direct action. After all, this Court has previously ruled that the
a program employee hence entitled to all the benefits appurtenant extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie if it is satisfactorily1avvphiestablished
thereto,”26 as found by the DOLE Regional Director. Respondent should be that the tribunal had acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of
bound by his own evidence. Moreover, the classification as to whether one is evidence material to or even decisive of the controversy
a “station employee” and “program employee,” as lifted from Policy
Instruction No. 40,27 dividing the workers in the broadcast industry into only
two groups is not binding on this Court, especially when the classification
has no basis either in law or in fact.28
Even the identification card purportedly issued by petitioner is not proof of
employer-employee relationship since it only identified respondent as an
“Authorized Representative of Bombo Radyo…,” and not as an employee.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: It has long been established that in
administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is
sufficient as a basis for judgment on the existence of employer-employee
relationship. Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of proof required in
labor cases, is “that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”
 In the instant case, save for respondent’s self-serving allegations and
self-defeating evidence, there is no substantial basis to warrant the
Regional Director’s finding that respondent is an employee of petitioner.
RE APPEAL BOND: The purpose of an appeal bond is to ensure, during the
period of appeal, against any occurrence that would defeat or diminish
recovery by the aggrieved employees under the judgment if subsequently
affirmed.40 The Deed of Assignment in the instant case, like a cash or surety
bond, serves the same purpose. First, the Deed of Assignment constitutes not
just a partial amount, but rather the entire award in the appealed Order.
Second, it is clear from the Deed of Assignment that the entire amount is
under the full control of the bank, and not of petitioner, and is in fact payable
to the DOLE Regional Office, to be withdrawn by the same office after it had
issued a writ of execution. For all intents and purposes, the Deed of
Assignment in tandem with the Letter Agreement and Cash Voucher is as
good as cash. Third, the Court finds that the execution of the Deed of
Assignment, the Letter Agreement and the Cash Voucher were made in good
faith, and constituted clear manifestation of petitioner’s willingness to pay
the judgment amount.
MODE OF APPEAL: it is settled, as a general proposition, that the
availability of an appeal does not foreclose recourse to the extraordinary
remedies, such as certiorari and prohibition, where appeal is not adequate or
equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient xxx
This Court has even recognized that a recourse to certiorari is proper not only
where there is a clear deprivation of petitioner’s fundamental right to due