Title
General Milling Corp. vs. Torres
Case
G.R. No. 93666
Decision Date
Apr 22, 1991
DOLE revoked a U.S. coach’s employment permit, citing lack of local worker availability and national interest benefits; Supreme Court upheld revocation, affirming Labor Secretary’s discretion.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 93666)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of Employment and Initial Permit
    • On 1 May 1989, the DOLE–National Capital Region issued Alien Employment Permit No. M-0689-3-535 to Earl Timothy Cone, a U.S. citizen, as sports consultant and assistant coach for General Milling Corporation (GMC).
    • On 27 December 1989, GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment for Cone to coach GMC’s basketball team.
  • Status Change and Permit Renewal
    • On 15 January 1990, the Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation approved Cone’s change of admission status from temporary visitor to prearranged employee.
    • On 9 February 1990, GMC requested renewal of Cone’s alien employment permit and authorization to employ him as full-fledged coach; on 15 February 1990, DOLE Regional Director Luna Piezas granted the request.
    • On 18 February 1990, Alien Employment Permit No. M-0290-3-881 was issued, valid until 25 December 1990.
  • Appeal, Revocation, and Administrative Remedies
    • The Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines (BCAP) appealed the issuance to the Secretary of Labor, who, on 23 April 1990, canceled Cone’s permit for failure to show (a) non-availability of competent local personnel and (b) that hiring Cone would redound to national interest.
    • GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration and two supplemental motions, all denied by Acting Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma on 8 June 1990.
    • On 14 June 1990, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion and that Section 6(c), Rule XIV, Book I of the IRR is null and void.

Issues:

  • Did the Secretary of Labor gravely abuse his discretion or act without or in excess of jurisdiction in revoking Cone’s alien employment permit?
  • Is Section 6(c), Rule XIV, Book I of the IRR ultra vires and void for not being authorized by Article 40 of the Labor Code?
  • Were petitioners denied due process by not being notified of BCAP’s appeal?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.