Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING SERVICE v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 178184 2014-01-29	GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners' contention is untenable. First, there is no provision in RA 6727 or RA 8188 which precludes the Labor Arbiter from imposing the penalty of double indemnity against employers. Second, Article 217 of the Labor Code gives the Labor Arbiter jurisdiction over cases of termination disputes and those cases accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. Thus, in Bay Haven, Inc. v. Abuan[71] the Court held that an allegation of illegal dismissal deprives the Secretary of Labor of jurisdiction over claims to enforce compliance with labor standards law. This was also pronounced in People's Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment,[72] wherein we stated that the Secretary of Labor has no jurisdiction in cases where employer-employee relationship has been terminated. We thus sustain the Labor Arbiter's award of double indemnity.
	GR No. 178909 2012-10-10	SUPERIOR PACKAGING CORPORATION v. ARNEL BALAGSAY REYES, J.
In People's Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment,[20] the Court stated that 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 determination, however, is merely preliminary, incidental and collateral to the DOLE's primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions. Such power was further explained recently by the Court in its Resolution[21] dated March 6, 2012 issued in People's Broadcasting, viz: 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. The Court issued the declaration that at least a prima facie showing of the absence of an employer-employee relationship be made to oust the DOLE of jurisdiction. But it is precisely the DOLE that will be faced with that evidence, and it is the DOLE that will weigh it, to see if the same does successfully refute the existence of an employer-employee relationship.