Bombo Radyo vs Secretary of DOLE [G. R. No. 179652; March 6, 2012] Case Digest

 

Bombo Radyo vs Secretary of DOLE

G. R. No. 179652; March 6, 2012

 

Facts:

            Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City, for illegal deduction, among other complains. CA held that petitioner was accorded due process as it had been given the opportunity to be heard, and that the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction over the matter, as the jurisdictional limitation imposed by Article 129 of the Labor Code on the power of the DOLE Secretary under Art. 128(b) of the Code had been repealed by Republic Act No. (RA) 7730. SC [in G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009] reversed and set aside the decision of CA.

SC found that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondent. It was held that while the DOLE may make a determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this function could not be co-extensive with the visitorial and enforcement power provided in Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was held to be the primary agency in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This was the interpretation of the Court of the clause "in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists" in Art. 128(b).

Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) filed a Motion for Clarification of Decision (with Leave of Court) to clarify 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. DOLE sought clarification as well, as to the extent of its visitorial and enforcement power under the Labor Code, as amended.

 

Issue:

            May the DOLE make a determination of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists?

 

Held:

            Yes.

           

Ratio:

            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, that the power was primarily held by the NLRC. The law did not say that the DOLE would first seek the NLRC’s determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, or that should the existence of the employer-employee relationship be disputed, the DOLE would refer the matter to the NLRC. The DOLE must have the power to determine whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists, and from there to decide whether or not to issue compliance orders in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730.

The DOLE, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has a ready 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.

The determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship by the DOLE must be respected. The expanded visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE granted by RA 7730 would be rendered nugatory if the alleged employer could, by the simple expedient of disputing the employer-employee relationship, force the referral of the matter to the NLRC.