VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE DOLE SECRETARY

3rd DIVISION G.R. No. 171275 July 13, 2009 VICTOR METEORO, et.al. vs. CREATIVE CREATURES, INC., NACHURA, J.:

which body/tribunal has jurisdiction over petitioners’ money claims --- the DOLE Secretary/duly authorized representative, or the NLRC?

The instant case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC.

The DOLE Secretary and her authorized representatives, such as the DOLE-NCR Regional Director, have jurisdiction to enforce compliance with labor standards laws under Art. 128. The visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standards laws and other labor legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims filed by workers.

But the power of the Regional Director to hear and decide the monetary claims of employees is not absolute. The last sentence of Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, (the "exception clause,") provides when the Regional Director may be divested of jurisdiction over a labor standards case. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the following elements, must all concur:
(a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
(c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.24

In the present case, ar the earliest opportunity, respondent registered its objection to the findings of the labor inspector, reiterated in its position paper that petitioners were not its employees. It questioned the Regional Director’s jurisdiction because of the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Petitioner raised the same arguments before the Secretary of Labor and the appellate court. It is clear that respondent contested and continues to contest the findings and conclusions of the labor inspector.

To resolve the issue raised by respondent there is need to examine evidentiary matters, applying the four-fold test. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Identification cards, cash vouchers, social security registration, appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee status.These are readily available, as they are in the possession of either the employee or the employer; and may easily be looked into by the labor inspector (in the course of inspection) when confronted with the question of the existence or absence of an employer-employee relationship.

Some businessmen try to avoid an employer-employee relationship from arising, requiring need for other evidence to ascertain the true nature of the parties’ relationship.

In the case at bar, whether or not petitioners were independent contractors/project employees/free lance workers is a question of fact requiring the examination of evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. While the contracts of independent services and check vouchers, were kept and maintained in or about the premises of the workplace and verifiable in the course of inspection, respondent claimed that petitioners were not precluded from working outside the service contracts they had entered into with it ; and that there were instances when petitioners abandoned their service contracts with the respondent, because they had to work on another project with a different company. The resolution of these issues requires the examination of evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection, and the Regional Director and the Secretary of Labor are divested of jurisdiction to decide the case.

"To contest" means to raise questions as to the amounts complained of or the absence of violation of labor standards laws; or, as in the instant case, issues as to the complainants’ right to labor standards benefits. Raising lack of jurisdiction alone is not the "contest" contemplated by the exception clause. The employer must contest the findings of the labor regulations officer during the hearing or after receipt of the notice of inspection results. The key requirement for the Regional Director and the DOLE Secretary to be divested of jurisdiction is that the evidentiary matters be not verifiable in the course of inspection. Where the evidence presented was verifiable in the normal course of inspection, even if presented belatedly by the employer, the Regional Director, and later the DOLE Secretary, may still examine it; and these officers are not divested of jurisdiction to decide the case.

Respondent contested the findings of the labor inspector during and after the inspection and raised issues the resolution of which necessitated the examination of evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. Hence, the Regional Director was divested of jurisdiction and should have endorsed the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.