PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING (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: 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.

WITH THE SC: petitioner argues that the National Labor Relations 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 not therefore “crystal clear that complainant is a station employee rather than a program employee
hence entitled to all the benefits appurtenant thereto,”26 as found by the DOLE Regional Director. Respondent
should be bound by his own evidence. Moreover, the classification as to whether one is 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 process, but so also where other special circumstances warrant immediate and
more direct action. After all, this Court has previously ruled that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie if it is
satisfactorily1avvphiestablished that the tribunal had acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of
evidence material to or even decisive of the controversy