Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6784)
Facts:
Enrique Y. Sagun v. ANZ Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc., G.R. No. 220399, August 22, 2016, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Enrique Y. Sagun applied online for a position with respondent ANZ Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc. After passing interview and testing, ANZ, through its Senior Vice President for Operations, Gay Cruzada, offered him the position by a letter of confirmation dated June 8, 2011, which Sagun accepted. The confirmation letter and attached Schedules set out the terms and conditions of employment, including a six‑month probationary period, a reporting date “not later than July 11, 2011,” and an express pre‑employment screening clause conditioning employment on satisfactory police/background, reference and related checks and on holding necessary visas.
Following his acceptance, petitioner resigned from his then‑employer HSBC‑EDPI (acknowledged June 11, 2011) and submitted pre‑employment documents to ANZ. When instructed to report on July 11, 2011, petitioner was instead handed a retraction letter signed by ANZ’s Human Resources Business Partner, Paula Alcaraz, withdrawing the job offer. ANZ explained that its background check, including inquiries with a prior employer, Siemens, revealed material inconsistencies in Sagun’s declared work history (he allegedly listed a higher position than held) and that he had been terminated for cause rather than having resigned.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against ANZ, Cruzada and Alcaraz before the Labor Arbiter (LA), contending the employment contract had been perfected on June 8, 2011 and that he was thereby an employee entitled to protection against dismissal. Respondents maintained no employer–employee relationship existed because ANZ’s offer was conditional, petitioner failed to satisfy the background checks and failed to report for work by the mandated date; they denied liability and personal liability of the officers.
The LA dismissed the complaint in a Decision dated April 23, 2012, finding the offer was validly withdrawn before commencement because of petitioner’s material misrepresentations. Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which, in a Decision dated July 31, 2012, affirmed the LA: although the contract was perfected, its effectivity was conditional on reporting and satisfactory background checks, which petitioner failed to satisfy, so no employer–employee relationship arose. The NLRC denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 28, 2012.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 127777. In a Decision dated May 25, 2015, the CA affirmed the NLRC: it distinguished perfection of the contract (which occurred) from commencement of the employment relationship (which did not, because of unsatisfactory background checks and failure to report). The CA also relied on Santiago v. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the NLRC’s finding that no employer–employee relationship existed between petitioner and ANZ?
- If the employment contract was perfected upon acceptance, did the suspensive conditions in the offer (satisfactory background checks and reporting by July 11, 2011) prevent the creation of an enforceable employer–employee relationship so as...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)