This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Although substantial evidence is not a function of quantity but rather of quality, the peculiar environmental circumstances of the instant case demand that something more should have been proffered.[33] Had there been other proofs of employment, such as respondent's inclusion in petitioner's payroll, or a clear exercise of control, the Court would have affirmed the finding of employer-employee relationship. The Regional Director, therefore, committed grievous error in ordering petitioner to answer for respondent's claims. Moreover, with the conclusion that no employer-employee relationship has ever existed between petitioner and respondent, it is crystal-clear that the DOLE Regional Director had no jurisdiction over respondent's complaint. Thus, the improvident exercise of power by the Secretary of Labor and the Regional Director behooves the court to subject their actions for review and to invalidate all the subsequent orders they issued. | |||||