Various news reports have come out over the past several days stating, among others, that Secretary Silvestre Bello III of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) would meet with PLDT officials to discuss a possible compromise agreement regarding the ongoing dispute between PLDT and the DOLE over the regularization of the employees of PLDT service contractors.

To clarify, we wish to state:

• No such meeting between Secretary Bello and PLDT officials has taken place. 
   
• PLDT has not sought a compromise agreement and is pursuing a fair and just resolution of this case on the basis of the 31 July 2018 decision of the Court of Appeals which substantially altered the pertinent orders of the DOLE.

In this regard, it is worthwhile to highlight the key points of CA ruling.

• The Court granted PLDT’s prayer for an injunction against the DOLE regularization orders.
   
• It set aside the regularization orders insofar as these declared that there was labor-only contracting of the following functions: (a) janitorial services, messengerial and clerical services; (b) information technology (IT) firms and services; (c) IT support services, both hardware and software; and applications development; (d) back office support and office operations; (e) business process outsourcing or call centers; (f) sales; and (g) medical, dental engineering and other professional services.
   
• The Court also sustained PLDT’s contention that the Secretary’s regularization order was “tainted with grave abuse of discretion” because it did not meet the “substantial evidence” standards set out by the Supreme Court in landmark jurisprudence. The Court also said that the DOLE’s appreciation of evidence leaned in favor of the contractor workers, and that the Secretary had “lost sight” of distinctions involving the labor law concepts of “control over means and methods,” and “control over results.” 

On 20th August 2018, PLDT filed a motion seeking a partial reconsideration of that part of the CA decision which ordered a remand to the Office of the Regional Director of the DOLE-National Capital Region of the matter of the regularization of individuals performing installation, repair and maintenance (IRM) services.

In its motion, PLDT argued that the fact-finding process contemplated by the Court’s remand order is not actually part of the visitorial power of the DOLE (i.e., the evidence that will need to be assessed cannot be gleaned  in the 'normal course’ of a labor inspection’) and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor.

PLDT also questioned that part of the CA ruling which seems to conclude that all IRM jobs are “regular”. It argued that the law recognizes that some work of this nature can be project-based or seasonal in nature.

Assuming the CA will affirm the remand, PLDT argued that instead of the DOLE it should be the National Labor Relations Commission — a tribunal with more comprehensive fact-finding powers — that should take over to determine whether the jobs are in fact IRM, and if so, whether they are “regular” or can be considered “project-based” or “seasonal”.