Peoples Broadcasting v. Sec.

of Labor and Employment FACTS: The present controversy concerns a matter of first impression, requiring as it does the determination of the demarcation line between the prerogative of t e !epartment of Labor and Employment "!#LE$ Secretary and is d%ly a%t ori&ed representatives , on the one hand, and t e '%risdiction of t e (ational Labor )elations Commission* on the other, under Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code in an instance + ere t e employer as c allenged t e '%risdiction of t e !#LE at t e very first level on t e gro%nd t at no employer,employee relations ip ever e-isted bet+een t e parties. The petition traces its origins to a complaint filed by Respondent Jandeleon Juezan against petitioner peoples roadcasting !ervice, "nc# $ ombo Radyo %hils#, "nc& for alleged violation of non'diminution of benefits $illegal deduction, non'payment of service incentive leave, ()th month pay, etc#& before the *+L, Regional +ffice# +n the basis of the complaint, the *+L, through the Labor "nspector conducted a plant level inspection and noted that the petitioner denied that an employer'employee relationship had ever e-isted between it and respondent because it was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised and disciplined respondent# "t also added that the case was beyond the .urisdiction of the *+L, and should have been considered by the labor arbiter because respondents claim e-ceeded %/,000#00# .SS/E: 1hether or not the !ecretary of Labor has the power to determine the e-istence of an employer'employee relationship under his visitorial and enforcement power found in 2rticle (34 $b& of the Labor Code, as amended by )ep%blic Act 0012. 3EL!: The clause 5in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists 6 signifies that the employer'employee relationship must have e-isted even before the emergence of the controversy# 7ecessarily, t e !#LEs po+er does not apply in t+o instances , namely8 $a& where t e employer,employee relations ip as ceased9 and $b& where no s%c relations ip as ever e-isted. "t can be assumed that the *+L, in the e-ercise of its visitorial and enforcement power somehow has to ma:e a determination of the e-istence of an employer'employee relationship# !uch prerogatival determination, however, cannot be coe-tensive with the visitorial and enforcement power itself# "ndeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and collateral to the *+L,s primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions# T e determination of t e e-istence of employer,employee relations ip is still primarily lodged +it t e (L)C. T e e-istence of an employer,employee relations ip is a stat%tory prere4%isite to and a limitation on t e po+er of t e Secretary of Labor* one + ic t e legislative branc is entitled to impose. 2s to the .urisdiction of the Regional *irector when the claim e-ceeds % /,000, the argument must be struc: down at once, as it is well settled, following the amendment of the Labor Code by R.A. 7730, that t e visitorial and enforcement po+ers of t e )egional !irector can be e-ercised even if t e individ%al claim e-ceeds P 5*222.