On 11 July 2018, Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III issued a Clarificatory Order regarding his department’s previous orders directing PLDT to absorb and regularize over 7,300 employees of its service contractors. On 18 July 2018, PLDT, through its counsel, received a copy. On 24 July 2018, PLDT filed a Manifestation with the Office of the Labor Secretary questioning the legality and propriety of the Clarificatory Order. A summary of the key points of this Manifestation is shown below. A copy of the Manifestation is also attached to this statement.
In its manifestation, PLDT sought to impugn the Clarificatory Order of the Labor Secretary, saying that the said order was “irregularly issued, procedurally inappropriate, based on selective and/or biased information, and vague.”
It was irregularly issued because, among others, the Clarificatory Order was released even though the previous orders of the Labor Secretary (issued on 10 January and 24 April 2018) are “final, cannot be modified and subject to the proceedings before the Court of Appeals”.
“If the intent of the Clarificatory Order is to expand, modify or alter the regularization orders, then to that extent it contravenes jurisprudence and established procedure,” the PLDT Manifestation said.
Moreover, the Clarificatory Order was issued without giving PLDT a chance to be properly heard, as required by due process of law. The Labor Secretary released the order immediately after he met with representatives of the PLDT labor union, the Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (MKP) on 11 July 2018. As it stated in an earlier Manifestation to the Office of the Labor Secretary on 16 July 2018, PLDT did not receive a notice calling it to such a meeting.
“Regretfully, because the Clarificatory Order was issued immediately after this meeting with the MKP, it cannot escape the impression that the Order is based entirely on a factual position advocated by the MKP which is … inaccurate and misleading. In all candor, these circumstances also increase PLDT’s concern that it will not receive a fair hearing on this matter before this Honorable Office,” PLDT’s Manifestation said.
In its manifestation, PLDT added that Clarificatory Order was issued because the Labor Secretary appears to have concluded that PLDT is “defying or disobeying its regularization orders”.
“If this is the conclusion of the Clarificatory Order or this Honorable Office, then with due respect it is wrong. PLDT has not taken any act to ‘frustrate or tend to frustrate’ this Honorable Office’s regularization orders,” PLDT said, adding that the PLDT’s Intake Process is “the logical, reasonable and necessary step in response to those regularization orders.”
This Process does not require workers in the DOLE list to “apply” for employment, contrary to the false and misleading claims by the MKP. Unfortunately, PLDT has not been even asked by the Labor Secretary to explain its Intake Process.
The Intake Process starts with the identification of the individual worker “to determine first and foremost that he is on the regularization list enumerated by this Honorable Office, and second, to ascertain that the person presenting himself or herself as such is indeed the same person on the regularization list,” explained the PLDT Manifestation.
The Process also asks the workers to provide information relevant to employment, such as his Social Security, Philhealth, PAG-IBIG and Tax Identification Number (TIN) details, in a manner compliant with the data privacy law.
PLDT’s Manifestation asked if these efforts to properly identify the individual worker and to comply with social insurance benefits, income tax regulations and data privacy rules constitute conditions that “frustrate or tend to frustrate” the regularization orders?
The Intake Process also requests the worker to take a medical exam. “Does the Clarificatory Order hold this against PLDT, given that the medical exam (a) is required of all PLDT employees in order to commence availment of PLDT’s extensive medical benefits; (b) establishes that the worker is physically fit to take on the job; and (c) is intended to protect the entire population of PLDT employees from communicable diseases?” the PLDT Manifestation said.
PLDT said that allegations against the Intake Process come from parties who have not participated in it or have a vested interest adverse to PLDT and therefore cannot serve as a reliable basis to conclude that the Intake Process should be stopped by DOLE. It pointed out MKP has encouraged workers not to participate in the Intake Process.
Any order finding PLDT liable for alleged ‘contumacious’ actions, if based on such defective evidence or factual bases, “is regretfully an unjust judgement”. PLDT reserves the right to take corresponding legal steps to assail such an order, the Manifestation said
Finally, to clarify various press reports quoting labor groups and the Labor Secretary, PLDT reiterates that it did not terminate the contracts with its service providers and thus cause the displacement of the workers assigned to PLDT.
What happened was the DOLE issued a Cease and Desist Order directing 38 service contractors to stop providing various services to PLDT. That same order also directed the start of proceedings to cancel their registration as service contractors, thus placing at risk the jobs not only of the workers assigned to PLDT but also of those workers posted with other customers of these service contract firms.
