G.R. No. 238581 - Steven Rouche vs. French Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines-Le Club, Christophe Riout, and Raymond Lions

Steven Rouche (Petitioner) was engaged by the French Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines-Le Club (Respondent) as a Consultant, under a Consultancy Agreement signed on December 11, 2013, which was effective upon approval of a pre-arranged employment visa 9(g) and an Alien Employment Permit (AEP).
Rouche secured the 9(g) visa and AEP as Consultant, valid until December 18, 2014.
On May 1, 2014, the Consultancy Agreement was replaced by an Employment Contract where Rouche was employed as Managing Director for three years.
However, no renewal of his visa or AEP was secured for this change of employment status.

On May 4, 2015, Christophe Riout, President of the French Chamber of Commerce, terminated Rouche's services citing loss of trust without specifying particular acts.
Riout offered Rouche to resign voluntarily for better compensation, which Rouche refused.
Subsequently, the Board confirmed Rouche's termination and appointed Vanessa Hans as Managing Director.
Public announcements were made about Rouche’s stepping down and Hans’s assumption of the role.
Rouche protested this dismissal by sending a letter to the Board.

Rouche filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Department of Labor and Employment Single Entry Approach desk on June 1, 2015, seeking backwages, commissions, 13th month pay, leave benefits, and relocation costs.
The French Chamber of Commerce claimed dismissal was lawful due to Rouche's lack of valid working visa and employment permit at the time of employment as Managing Director.

On May 30, 2016, Labor Arbiter found Rouche illegally dismissed due to lack of proof of charges and procedural due process violations, awarding backwages and attorney's fees totaling approximately PHP 1.94 million.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, dismissing Rouche's complaint for lack of merit, highlighting the void nature of the employment contract due to the absence of valid visa and permit.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC ruling based on the strict requirement under the Labor Code that non-resident aliens secure permits before employment and applied earlier rulings (WPP Marketing Communications and McBurnie), dismissing Rouche's claim for illegal dismissal.

Rouche petitioned before the Supreme Court, arguing that the strict application of cited cases is inapplicable given his prior possession of valid visa and AEP as Consultant and his inability to renew his visa/permit was due to negligence by respondents’ counsel Paras & Manlapaz.
Rouche claimed procedural unfairness and lack of substantive grounds for dismissal, contesting the vague and unspecific charges.
He also raised possible conflict of interest and professional misconduct against the lawyer firm Paras & Manlapaz, which previously handled his visa processing and now represented respondents.

Whether petitioner Steven Rouche can seek legal redress in labor tribunals despite lacking a valid visa and Alien Employment Permit for his new position.
Whether Rouche was illegally dismissed due to respondents' failure to substantiate charges and to comply with procedural due process.
Whether respondents’ counsel should be held administratively liable for representing conflicting interests in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.