General Milling Corporation and Earl Timothy Cone vs. Honorable Ruben D. Torres et. al., G.R. No. 93666, April 22, 1991.

 

General Milling Corporation and Earl Timothy Cone vs. Honorable Ruben D. Torres et. al., G.R. No. 93666, April 22, 1991.

 

Management prerogative is an inherent right of the employer to regulate all aspects of employment.

However, there are instances where a particular work can only be done by a person with special skills or expertise. It is a good thing if the employer could hire a local who fits perfectly with the job description. But what if the employer, despite efforts in trying to hire the prospective employee failed to locate a qualified person in the country? Or, what if a qualified person is available in the country but is not willing to be employed? Is there a remedy for such employer?

May an employer hire a foreign national?

The law says:

Yes.

Employing a foreign national or a non-resident alien is allowed. However, before resorting to employing a foreign national, the employer must first determine the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to perform the services which the foreign national is desired.

In addition, before employing a foreign national, the foreign national must have an Alien Employment Permit (AEP) which is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) through its Regional Offices and is one of the requirements for a foreign national to work in the country. Do note that not all foreign nationals are required to secure AEP. Some are excluded and some are exempted.

Based on the foregoing, it seems that the employment of foreign national is not that easy as employing a local. An employer might argue that it is a management prerogative to employ a foreign national.

Is employing a foreign national a management prerogative?

The Supreme Court says:

Let us take the case of General Milling Corporation and Earl Timothy Cone vs. Honorable Ruben D. Torres et. al., G.R. No. 93666, April 22, 1991.

In this case, Earl Timothy Cone (Cone), a United States citizen, by virtue of an Alien Employment Permit issued in his favor, entered into a contract of employment whereby he undertook to coach for General Milling Corporation’s (employer) basketball team.

After sometime, the employer requested for the renewal of Cone’s AEP but the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision ordering the cancellation of Cone’s employment permit on the ground that there was no showing that there is no person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring of Cone would redound to the national interest.

The employer filed a Motion a for Reconsideration. It claimed that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer’s prerogative.

Is the employer correct?

No.

The Supreme Court ruled that an alien seeking employment of an alien must first obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor. The employer’s right to choose whom to employs is limited by the statutory requirement of AEP.

Hiring Non Resident Aliens

·       The selection and engagement of the employee is a factor in determining the existence employer-employee relationship

·       Generally, the government may not interfere with the right of an employer to hire his employee

·       Employing a foreign national is subject to the requirement of an alien employment permit.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more