It is apparent that there is a need to delineate the jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary vis-à-vis that of the NLRC. The Court treated the Motion for Clarification as a second motion for reconsideration, granting said motion and reinstating the petition. In its Comment, the DOLE sought clarification as well, as to the extent of its visitorial and enforcement power under the Labor Code, as amended. The PAO sought 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. įrom this Decision, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) filed a Motion for Clarification of Decision (with Leave of Court).
This was the interpretation of the Court of the clause “in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists” in Art. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was held to be the primary agency in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730. 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. The Court found that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondent.
The complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED. VII, dated and 27 February 2004, respectively, are ANNULLED. The Order of the then Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment dated 27 January 2005 denying petitioner’s appeal, and the Orders of the Director, DOLE Regional Office No. The Decision dated 26 October 2006 and the Resolution dated 26 June 2007 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows: In the Decision of this Court, the CA Decision was reversed and set aside, and the complaint against petitioner was dismissed. 128(b) of the Code had been repealed by Republic Act No. When the matter was brought before the CA, where petitioner claimed that it had been denied due process, it was held that petitioner was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. The Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the ground that petitioner submitted a Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposit instead of posting a cash or surety bond. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Director’s Order, but failed. After the conduct of summary investigations, and after the parties submitted their position papers, the DOLE Regional Director found that private respondent was an employee of petitioner, and was entitled to his money claims.
VII, Cebu City, for illegal deduction, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed payment of wages and noncoverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth. Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) questioned the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated Octoand June 26, 2007, respectively, in C.A. In a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
