The university never controlled how Coach Baldwin conducted his training programs
At a Department of Labor hearing in Manila, Ateneo de Manila University argued that Tab Baldwin — the foreign coach whose tenure is shadowed by the deaths of two student-athletes — was never truly their employee, but a consultant whose expertise they engaged without exercising control over his methods. The distinction is not merely semantic: it determines whether Baldwin broke Philippine labor law by coaching for over a decade without an alien employment permit, a question the Labor Secretary received with visible skepticism. Behind the legal architecture of contracts and immigration classifications lies a deeper reckoning — with institutional accountability, the limits of expertise, and the cost borne by those who trusted the system.
- Two young athletes, Rene Baterbonia and Divine Adili, are dead — and the legal proceedings now unfolding are inseparable from that loss, even as they pivot on the technical language of labor compliance.
- Ateneo's lawyers arrived at the DOLE hearing unable to answer who actually paid Baldwin, a gap that visibly unsettled the room and undermined the confidence of their own argument.
- The university's central defense — that Baldwin retained full discretion over his coaching methods, proving no employer control existed — rests on a legal distinction the Labor Secretary has not yet accepted.
- Baldwin has operated without an alien employment permit since 2013, relying on permanent resident status, but the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code may require a permit regardless.
- Ateneo has seven days to submit a memorandum; DOLE's ruling will determine whether Baldwin violated labor law — a finding that compounds the criminal complaints already recommended by investigators.
On the morning of July 9, Ateneo de Manila University's lawyers entered a Department of Labor and Employment hearing carrying a single, load-bearing argument: Tab Baldwin was not their employee. He was a consultant. The difference, they insisted, was legally decisive — because it would determine whether the former men's basketball coach was ever required to hold an alien employment permit.
Attorneys Krisha Santos and Philippe Quimbo presented a consultancy agreement dated September 2025 to Labor Secretary Francis Tolentino. Santos offered the standard legal distinction: a consultant retains discretion over how work is performed, while an employee is subject to the employer's control over both the task and the method. Quimbo pressed the point further, arguing that Ateneo never dictated Baldwin's training programs or coaching methods — and that this absence of control was the definitive proof of a consultancy relationship.
But the hearing surfaced an uncomfortable gap. When Tolentino asked who had actually paid Baldwin, the university's lawyers admitted they did not know. They had not coordinated with Ateneo's in-house counsel or whoever had drafted the contract. The money, they suggested, may have come from the team's sponsors. The admission seemed to linger.
A separate witness, lawyer Jose Feliciano, testified that he had advised Baldwin years earlier that permanent residents were exempt from the employment permit requirement. Baldwin had not held one since 2013. Feliciano had helped him secure a quota immigrant visa and permanent residency in 2015 — and at the time, saw no need to apply for a work permit. Tolentino signaled that this reasoning may not hold: the Omnibus Rules implementing Article 40 of the Labor Code appear to require permits even for holders of alien certificates of registration.
Ateneo was given seven days to submit a memorandum and supporting documents. Tolentino promised a decision that was 'very judiciously and fairly' reached. The case did not begin in a courtroom — it began with the deaths of two student-athletes, Rene Baterbonia and Divine Adili, during a team-building activity. Criminal investigators have already recommended homicide and anti-hazing complaints against Baldwin and members of his coaching staff. The labor question — whether Baldwin was ever legally authorized to work in the Philippines at all — now sits alongside that grief, waiting for its own answer.
On Thursday morning, July 9, Ateneo de Manila University's lawyers walked into a Department of Labor and Employment hearing with a straightforward argument: Tab Baldwin, the former men's basketball coach, was never their employee. He was a consultant. The distinction mattered enormously, because it determined whether he should have secured an alien employment permit before coaching at the university.
Ateneo's legal team, led by attorneys Krisha Santos and Philippe Quimbo, presented a consultancy agreement dated September 2025 to Labor Secretary Francis Tolentino and the hearing panel. When Tolentino pressed them to explain the difference between hiring a consultant and hiring an employee, Santos offered the standard legal distinction: Baldwin was a specialist who retained discretion over how he performed his work. An employee, by contrast, operates under the employer's control—the employer dictates not just what gets done, but how it gets done. "The university contracted him because of his well-regarded coaching expertise," Santos said during the hearing, which DOLE livestreamed.
Quimbo doubled down on this argument, emphasizing what he called the most critical element missing from any employment relationship: the employer's power of control. Ateneo, he insisted, never dictated Baldwin's coaching methods. The university did not control how he ran his training programs or conducted his work with the team. This absence of control, Quimbo argued, proved Baldwin was a consultant, not an employee.
When Tolentino asked a practical question—who actually paid Baldwin?—the university's lawyers admitted they did not know. They had not coordinated with whoever drafted the contract or with Ateneo's in-house counsel. The money, they suggested, possibly came from the team's sponsors, who provided the bulk of the basketball program's funding. This gap in their own knowledge seemed to hang in the room.
A lawyer named Jose Feliciano appeared as a witness to address the alien employment permit question directly. Feliciano had advised Baldwin years earlier that permanent residents were exempt from needing such a permit. Baldwin had not held one since 2013. Feliciano explained that he had helped Baldwin secure a quota immigrant visa and an alien certificate of registration from the Bureau of Immigration. Baldwin had arrived as a tourist, then decided to stay permanently. When Feliciano secured the permanent residency paperwork in 2015, he did not apply for an employment permit because, in his view, permanent residents did not need one.
Tolentino, however, signaled skepticism. Under the Omnibus Rules implementing Article 40 of the Labor Code, he noted, even holders of alien certificates of registration are required to secure employment permits. The legal ground Feliciano had relied on appeared shakier than he had believed.
Ateneo was ordered to submit a memorandum and supporting documents within seven days. Tolentino said the department would decide "very judiciously and fairly" whether Baldwin had violated labor laws. The case itself had emerged from tragedy: two Ateneo student-athletes, Rene Baterbonia and Divine Adili, died during a team-building activity. The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group had already recommended filing homicide and anti-hazing complaints against Baldwin and other members of the coaching staff. Now, layered on top of that investigation, was this question of whether Baldwin had even been legally authorized to work in the Philippines at all.
Citas Notables
The university contracted him because of his well-regarded coaching expertise— Krisha Santos, Ateneo's lawyer
Ateneo de Manila does not control the means and methods of how Coach Tab Baldwin conducts his training programs— Philippe Quimbo, Ateneo's lawyer
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter whether Baldwin was a consultant or an employee? Isn't he still the same person who coached the team?
It matters because employment law carries obligations—minimum wage, benefits, labor protections, work hour limits. A consultant is a contractor. An employee is someone the university has a legal duty to protect and regulate. If Baldwin was an employee without proper documentation, Ateneo violated the law.
But Ateneo's lawyers said Baldwin had discretion over his methods. Doesn't that actually sound like he was independent?
That's what they argued, yes. But the real question is whether Ateneo could have stopped him, corrected him, fired him for cause. If they could—if they had that power—then he was an employee, no matter what the contract said. The lawyers seemed uncertain about basic facts, like who paid him.
The Labor Secretary seemed to push back on the permanent resident exemption. What's at stake there?
If permanent residents still need employment permits, then Baldwin worked illegally for thirteen years. That's not a technicality. That's a violation of Philippine labor law, and it implicates Ateneo for knowingly allowing it.
And this all connects to the deaths of those two students?
Yes. The labor hearing exists because of the deaths. The question of whether Baldwin was properly authorized to work is now part of a larger accountability picture. The university is defending itself on multiple fronts at once.
What happens if DOLE rules against Ateneo?
That depends on what they find. If Baldwin was an employee without proper permits, Ateneo faces penalties. If they find he violated labor law knowingly, it could be worse. But the real weight is already there—two students are dead, and now the legal status of the person who was coaching them is in question.