Title
McBurnie vs. Ganzon
Case
G.R. No. 178034
Decision Date
Oct 17, 2013
Australian national McBurnie claimed illegal dismissal, alleging a 5-year employment contract with EGI. Respondents argued it was a joint investment, not employment. SC ruled no employer-employee relationship existed, dismissing McBurnie's claims due to lack of alien work permit and void agreement.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 197728)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Origin of Dispute
    • May 11, 1999: Andrew James McBurnie, an Australian national, signs a five-year “employment agreement” as Executive Vice-President with EGI-Managers, Inc.; respondents later claim it was an investment pact to facilitate his work permit.
    • November 1999: McBurnie suffers an accident, returns to Australia; told by respondent Ganzon that his services are no longer needed; he files a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims on October 4, 2002.
  • Proceedings Below
    • Labor Arbiter Decision (Sept 30, 2004): Declares McBurnie illegally dismissed; awards US$985,162 (unexpired salary), ₱2,000,000 (moral/exemplary damages), and 10% of total award as attorney’s fees.
    • NLRC Actions: Respondents post a ₱100,000 bond but move to reduce the required full bond (≈₱54,083,910); NLRC denies motion (Mar 31, 2005), requires full bond; dismisses appeal for failure to post additional bond (Mar 8, 2006; reconsideration denied Jun 30, 2006).
    • Court of Appeals (CA): Grants preliminary injunction (Feb 16, 2007) on ₱10,000,000 bond; on merits (Oct 27, 2008) grants motion to reduce bond to ₱10,000,000, directs NLRC to give due course to respondents’ appeal; denies further motions (Mar 3, 2009).
  • Supreme Court Third Division
    • Petition for Review: McBurnie’s petition denied for technical defects (July 4 & Oct 8, 2007); his supplemental motion denied as prohibited pleading (Nov 26, 2007).
    • Third Division Decision (Sept 18, 2009): Reverses CA, reinstates NLRC’s dismissal for failure to post full bond; holds that bond equal to full award is the exclusive means to perfect appeal. Respondents’ first motion for reconsideration denied (Dec 14, 2009).
    • Finality and Further Motions: Decision becomes final March 14, 2012; respondents file third motion for reconsideration (Mar 27, 2012); en banc accepts the case and issues TRO (Sept 4, 2012); McBurnie files motion for reconsideration (Sept 26, 2012).

Issues:

  • Procedural Issues
    • May the Court en banc entertain second or subsequent motions for reconsideration to recall a final and executory decision?
    • Is failure to post the full appeal bond within the 10-day reglementary period fatal despite a pending motion to reduce bond?
  • Appeal Bond Issues
    • Does filing a motion to reduce bond, coupled with a partial bond posting, suspend the 10-day period to perfect an appeal?
    • What constitutes a “reasonable amount” of bond in relation to the monetary award?
  • Merits of Illegal Dismissal
    • Was there an employer-employee relationship between McBurnie and respondents?
    • Does absence of an Alien Employment Permit render the contract void and bar an illegal dismissal claim?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.