7/25/2019 Meteoro v Creative Creatures

1/2

Meteoro et al v. Creative CreaturesG.R. No. 171275; Jul. 13, 2009; Nachura, J.Digest prepared b !aolo "a#ase

A. Facts1. $R%&"'(% $reatures, ')c. is a busi)ess that pri#aril caters to the productio)

desig) re*uire#e)ts o+ &-$N. $R%&"'(% hired the 33 !%"'"'/N%R- asartists, carpe)ters, a)d elders to desig), create, asse#ble, setup a)ddis#a)tle the props o+ productio) sets.

2. eb.4ar. 1999 !%"'"'/N%R- 6led complaints for non-payment andillegal deductionsith DOLE-NCR. "he be)e6ts allegedl u)paid ere the)ightshi+t diere)tial, o8erti#e, holida, 12th#o)th, pre#iu# -u)daa)dor rest da:, -', a)d pater)it lea8e pa, a)d other be)e6ts.

a. Duri)g i)8estigatio), the laor inspector )oted that records !erenot made availale" a)d that CREA#$%E claimed t&e'E#$#$ONER( !ere independent talent workers.

b. ') their positio) paper, $R%&"'(% argued that DOLE &ad no)urisdictionsi)cethere is a) asence of an employer-employee

relations&ip, as !%"'"'/N%R- ere *free-lance+3. &pr. 1999 !%"'"'/N%R- 6led complaints for illegal dismissal !it&

paymentith the NLRC.urisdictio), i.e. the case +alls ithi) theeBceptio) clause i) art. 12?b: o+ the abor $ode. C %-

C. eld@ !etitio) dis#issed; $& decisio), aEr#ed. "he case +alls ithi) theeBclusi8e >urisdictio) o+ the NR$.

D. Ratio@1. "he D/% -ecretar or her authoriFed represe)tati8ehas)urisdiction to

enforce compliance !it& laor standards u)der their broad visitorial andenforcement powers i) art. 12?.

2. Legislative history: &rt. 12? has go)e through se8eral a#e)d#e)ts. ')Servandos v. SOLE, the $ourt held that the D/% did )ot ha8e 8isitorial a)de)+orce#e)t poers he) the a#ou)ts clai#ed eBceed !5,000. "his ould

1

7/25/2019 Meteoro v Creative Creatures

2/2

later be re8ersed i) Guico v. Quisuming, !llied "nvestigation v. SOLE, a)d#ireneo v. $owling. ') a) e8e)t, the issue as settled b R.&. No. 7730,hich +reed art. 12?b: +ro# the >urisdictio) restrictio)s i) art. 129 a)d 217.

3. Ne8ertheless, the po!er of t&e Regional Director to &ear and decidemonetary claims is not absolute.)der art. 12?b:, there is a) e,ceptionclause, hich di8ests the D/% o+ >urisdictio) he) the +olloi)g ele#e)ts

all co)cur@ 1: the e#ploer contests and raises issues ith the 6)di)gs o+the i)spector; 2: i) order to resol8e the issues, there is a need to e,amineevidentiary matters; a)d 3: the #atters are not veri/ale in t&enormal course of inspection.