GR 93666; (April, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93666; April 22, 1991
General Milling Corporation and Earl Timothy Cone, petitioners, vs. Hon. Ruben D. Torres, in his capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment, Hon. Bienvenido E. Laguesma, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment, and Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed Earl Timothy Cone, a United States citizen, as a sports consultant and assistant coach. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) initially issued an Alien Employment Permit (AEP) to Cone. Subsequently, GMC requested a renewal and a change in Cone’s status to a full-fledged coach, which the DOLE Regional Director granted. However, the Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines (BCAP) appealed this issuance to the Secretary of Labor.
The Secretary of Labor ordered the cancellation of Cone’s AEP. The Secretary found that GMC failed to demonstrate the non-availability of a competent, able, and willing Filipino to perform the coaching services, and also failed to show that hiring Cone would redound to the national interest. GMC’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in revoking the alien employment permit, and whether the implementing rule requiring the employment to “redound to the national interest” is valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the Secretary of Labor’s authority under Article 40 of the Labor Code, which mandates that an AEP may be issued only after determining the non-availability of a competent Filipino for the job. This statutory requirement inherently limits an employer’s prerogative to hire aliens. The Court also sustained the validity of Section 6(c), Rule XIV of the Implementing Rules, which requires the Secretary’s assessment of whether the alien’s employment would redound to the national interest.
The Court reasoned that this requirement is consistent with the broad policy objectives of the Labor Code under Article 12, which includes regulating alien employment in conformity with the national interest. The permissive language of Article 40 grants the Secretary discretionary authority, which logically encompasses considering the national interest. Petitioners’ constitutional arguments—regarding equal protection and impairment of contracts—were rejected. Laws in existence at the time of contract execution are deemed part of the contract, and the equal protection claim failed as the compared individual was a resident alien, a distinct legal category. The Court emphasized that the DOLE is the primary agency vested with jurisdiction to determine the availability of local workers, not the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.