7/24/2019 Bombo Radio

1/3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

PEOPLES BROADCASTING

SERVICE (BOMBO RADYO

PHILS., INC.),

Petitioner,

- versus -

THE SECRETARY OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

AND EMPLOYMENT, THE

REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

DOLE REGION VII, and

JANDELEON JUEZAN,

Responents!

G.R. No. !"#$%

Present"

CORONA, C.J.,

CARP#O,

$E%ASCO, &R!,

%EONAR'O-'E CASTRO,BR#ON,

PERA%TA,

BERSAM#N,

'E% CAST#%%O,(

ABA',

$#%%ARAMA, &R!,

PERE),

MEN'O)A,

SERENO,

RE*ES, an

PER%AS-BERNABE, JJ!

Pro+ulate"

March , ./0.

1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

R E S O L U T I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.&

#n a Petition for Certiorari uner Rule 2, petitioner Peoples Broacastin Service,

#nc! 3Bo+bo Ra4o Phils!, #nc!5 6uestione the 'ecision an Resolution of the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn1

7/24/2019 Bombo Radio

2/3

Court of Appeals 3CA5 ate October ., .// an &une ., .//7, respectivel4, in

C!A! 8!R! CEB-SP No! //922!

Private responent &aneleon &ue:an file a co+plaint aainst petitioner

;ith the 'epart+ent of %abor an E+plo4+ent 3'O%E5 Reional Office No! $##,Cebu Cit4, for illeal euction, nonpa4+ent of service incentive leave, 0After the conuct of su++ar4 investiations, an after the parties

sub+itte their position papers, the 'O%E Reional 'irector foun that private

responent ;as an e+plo4ee of petitioner, an ;as entitle to his +one4 clai+s!=.>Petitioner souht reconsieration of the 'irectors Orer, but faile! The Actin

'O%E Secretar4 is+isse petitioners appeal on the roun that petitionersub+itte a 'ee of Assin+ent of Ban? 'eposit instea of postin a cash or

suret4 bon! @hen the +atter ;as brouht before the CA, ;here petitioner clai+e

that it ha been enie ue process, it ;as hel that petitioner ;as accore ue

process as it ha been iven the opportunit4 to be hear, an that the 'O%E

Secretar4 ha urisiction over the +atter, as the urisictional li+itation i+pose

b4 Article 0. of the %abor Coe on the po;er of the 'O%E Secretar4 uner Art!

0.93b5 of the Coe ha been repeale b4 Republic Act No! 3RA5 77

The Court foun that there ;as no e+plo4er-e+plo4ee relationship bet;een

petitioner an private responent! #t ;as hel that ;hile the 'O%E +a4 +a?e a

eter+ination of the e1istence of an e+plo4er-e+plo4ee relationship, this function

coul not be co-e1tensive ;ith the visitorial an enforce+ent po;er provie in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn5

7/24/2019 Bombo Radio

3/3

Art! 0.93b5 of the %abor Coe, as a+ene b4 RA 77

Dro+ this 'ecision, the Public Attorne4s Office 3PAO5 file a Motion for

Clarification of 'ecision 3;ith %eave of Court5! The PAO souht to clarif4 as to

;hen the visitorial an enforce+ent po;er of the 'O%E be not consiere as co-

e1tensive ;ith the po;er to eter+ine the e1istence of an e+plo4er-e+plo4ee

relationship!=>#n its Co++ent,=7>the 'O%E souht clarification as ;ell, as to the

e1tent of its visitorial an enforce+ent po;er uner the %abor Coe, as a+ene!

The Court treate the Motion for Clarification as a secon +otion for

reconsieration, rantin sai +otion an reinstatin the petition!=9>#t is apparent

that there is a nee to elineate the urisiction of the 'O%E Secretar4 vis--vis

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/179652.htm#_ftn9