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