G.R. No. 195580 - Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. vs. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp.

Petitioner Enrique Y. Sagun was employed at Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Electronic Data Processing (Philippines), Inc. (HSBC-EDPI).
Petitioner applied online for the position of Payments and Cash Processing Lead at respondent ANZ Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc. (ANZ), a domestic banking corporation.
Petitioner passed the interview and online examination.
ANZ, through Senior Vice President for Operations Gay Cruzada, offered petitioner the position of Customer Service Officer, Payments and Cash Resolution.
Petitioner accepted the offer on June 8, 2011.

The employment agreement was confirmed in a letter which included a clause requiring satisfactory completion of pre-employment screening including police record checks, background and reference checks.
The offer stated that employment is conditional upon satisfactory results and holding necessary visas.
The letter provided that if background checks or visas were unsatisfactory, ANZ could withdraw the offer or end employment without liability for compensation.
The agreement included schedules placing petitioner on probation for six months, with effectivity no later than July 11, 2011.

Petitioner tendered resignation from HSBC on June 11, 2011 and submitted pre-employment documents to ANZ.
On July 11, 2011, petitioner was instructed to report to ANZ.
Petitioner received a letter of retraction from ANZ’s Human Resources Business Partner, Paula Alcaraz, withdrawing the job offer.
The withdrawal was based on material inconsistencies found in a background check, especially regarding petitioner’s declarations about his work at Siemens.

Petitioner claimed he held a Level 2 Technical Support Representative position, but background check showed Level 1.
Petitioner claimed to have resigned from Siemens, but background showed termination for cause due to absence without official leave (AWOL).

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ANZ and officers at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) citing that the employment contract was perfected on June 8, 2011 and could only be terminated for cause.
Respondents claimed no employer-employee relationship existed, and the offer was conditional and not effective due to misrepresentations and failure to report for work by July 11, 2011.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint due to lack of a perfected employment relationship.
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s dismissal, holding no employer-employee relationship existed as petitioner did not report for work and misrepresented facts in his application.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC, distinguishing perfection of contract from commencement of employer-employee relationship, citing Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc.
CA ruled the contract was perfected on June 8, 2011 but did not commence due to unsatisfactory background check and failure to report for work.
The CA also held that the NLRC had jurisdiction despite absence of employer-employee relationship.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, leading to this petition for review.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents.