GROUNDS

The petition alleges the following errors committed by herein public respondent Secretary of
Labor and Employment (SOLE):

1. The public respondent SOLE committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it issued an order creating exemption which is not anchored
to any law that grants such authority.
2. The SOLE committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it reversed the ruling of the Regional Director that the petitioners were
deemed as regular employees of PLDT because of ______________________.
3. BPO

ARGUMENTS

SOLE power is limited only

in classifying and interpreting laws,
no authority to create exemptions

1. In a resolution dated 10 January 2018 made by the public respondent SOLE, it declared
that Unison Systems Computer, Inc. is not a labor-contracting only on the ground that its
nature of work falls under the exemptions created by SOLE by virtue of Department
Circular No. 01 Series of 2012. To wit:

DO 18-, Series of 2011, contemplates generic or focused singular activity in one

contract between the prinicipal and the contractor (for example, janitorial,
security, merchandising, specific production work) and does not contemplate
information technology-enabled services involving an entire business process (for
example, business process outsourcing, knowledge process outsouring, legal
process outsourcing, hardware and/or software support, medical
transcription, animation services, back office operations/ support). These
companies engaged in business processes (“BPO”) may hire employees in
accordance with applicable laws, and maintain these employees based on business
requirements, which may or may not be for different clients of the BPOs at
different periods of the employees’ employment. (Department Circular No. 01
Series of 2012, 3. Applicability of the D.O. 18-A, Series of 2011 to BPO, 3.2)

2. In the abovementioned provision of D.C. 1-12, SOLE clearly enumerates what are those
covered under the definition of information technology-enabled services.
3. However, the law only vested the SOLE the power to classify and interpret laws without
any authority to create exemptions. As provided in Article 106 of Presidential Decree
No. 442, as amended, or known as Labor Code of the Philippines,

“Article 106. Contractor or subcontractor. Whenever an employer enters into a

contract with another person for the performance of the former’s work, the
employees of the contractor and of the latter’s subcontractor, if any, shall be paid
in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his
employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and
severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the
extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent
that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, by appropriate regulations, restrict

or prohibit the contracting-out of labor to protect

the rights of workers established under this Code. In so prohibiting or restricting,

he may make appropriate distinctions between labor-only contracting and
job contracting as well as differentiations within these types of contracting
and determine who among the parties involved shall be considered the
employer for purposes of this Code, to prevent any violation or circumvention
of any provision of this Code. xxx”

4. Furthermore, the provisions in Department Order No. 18-A only serve as a regulation
governing contracting and subcontracting arrangements. Nothing in the said Department
Order explicitly grants any authority upon the Secretary of Labor and Employment to
create enumerations to be considered exempted from registration of contractor or
subcontractor arrangement.

5. Considering the foregoing provision under the Labor Code, public respondent SOLE
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by
issuing a circular order which creates exemption which exceeded or not covered by the
authority granted by the Labor Code and Department Order No. 18-A upon his or her
public office. Such act committed by the public respondent SOLE is tantamount to
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to or equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. There is grave abuse of discretion when the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of "passion or personal hostility, and must be so
patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
 perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. G.R. No. 170904,
November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 330 [Per J. Brion, Second Division]

6. As cited in_____(Jurisprudence; when an action to issue an order is not supported by any

law; when an act is considered as ultra vires)

SOLE violates the due process

by prohibiting the right to appeal
of the petitioner contractor’s employees

1. Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “(n)o person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the law.”

2. In a resolution (confirm ko kung yung latest reso or not) issued by the public respondent
SOLE, it arbitrarily states that no further pleadings would be allowed or entertained by its
Honorable Office. By virtue of such statement, it denied the opportunity of the petitioner
contractor’s employees to file a motion for reconsideration assailing such order.

3. Find jurisprudence na may denial of the right to appeal or right to file MR

4. Substantial yung material dates ng latest RESO and writ of execution, para macheck kung
noncompliance si SOLE sa requirements to perfect an appeal.