1.

Title: Paragele vs. GMA Network, Inc.

Case: G.R. No. 235315

Decision Date: Jul 13, 2020

Facts:

 The case involves former employees of GMA Network, Inc. who filed a
complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal.

 Petitioners, including Henry T. Paragele, Roland Elly C. Jaso, and Julie B.

Aparente, worked as camera operators and assistant cameramen for
GMA.

 They claimed they were regular employees performing essential

functions for GMA’s broadcasting operations but were dismissed in May
2013.

 GMA contended that the petitioners were "pinch-hitters or relievers"

working on a per-shoot basis without an employer-employee
relationship.

 The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint.

 The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later recognized the

petitioners as employees, but only Roxin Lazaro was deemed a regular
employee.

 The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC’s decision.

 The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the

Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the

petitioners and GMA.

2. Assuming the existence of an employer-employee relationship,

whether the petitioners are regular employees of GMA.

3. Assuming regular employment status, whether the petitioners were

illegally dismissed.

Ruling:
  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them as
regular employees of GMA.

 The Court ordered their reinstatement with full backwages, allowances,

and other benefits from the time of their illegal dismissal until their
actual reinstatement.

 GMA was ordered to pay attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of

the total monetary award accruing to each petitioner.

 Legal interest at the rate of six percent per annum was imposed until
full payment.

 The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of
backwages and other monetary awards due to the petitioners.

Ratio:

 The Supreme Court applied the four-fold test to determine the

existence of an employer-employee relationship:

o Selection and engagement of the employee.

o Payment of wages.

o Power of dismissal.

o Employer's power to control the employee's work.

 The Court found that GMA:

o Engaged the petitioners' services.

o Compensated them.

o Had the power to dismiss them.

o Exercised control over their work.

 The Court rejected GMA's argument that the petitioners were "pinch-
hitters or relievers."

 The petitioners performed functions necessary and desirable to GMA's

business, making them regular employees.

 The requirement of rendering at least one year of service to attain

regular status applies only to casual employees.
  As regular employees, the petitioners were entitled to security of
tenure and could only be dismissed for just or authorized cause, which
GMA failed to prove.

 Consequently, the petitioners' dismissal was deemed illegal, entitling

them to reinstatement and backwages.

2.

Title: Hubilla vs. HSY Marketing Ltd., Co.

Case: G.R. No. 207354

Decision Date: Jan 10, 2018

Facts:

 Multiple petitioners, including Charlie Hubilla, were employees of Novo

Jeans & Shirt & General Merchandise, under various respondents like
HSY Marketing Ltd., Co.

 Events occurred around May and June 2010.

 Employees aired grievances about labor violations on Raffy Tulfo's

radio program and were referred to DOLE Camanava Regional Office.

 On June 7, 2010, employees claimed they were barred from their

workplace.

 Novo Jeans sent a show cause letter the next day; employees argued
they were already dismissed.

 Employees sent a demand letter on July 19, 2010, seeking amicable

settlement, which failed.

 Employees filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter after withdrawing

from DOLE.

 Novo Jeans argued that employees voluntarily terminated their

employment and filed complaints with DOLE.

 Labor Arbiter dismissed complaints on May 31, 2011, citing lack of

evidence and voluntary termination due to radio appearance.

 NLRC reversed this decision on June 25, 2012, finding employees were
illegally dismissed and applied the principle of equipoise.
  CA reversed NLRC's decision on February 25, 2013, reinstating Labor
Arbiter's ruling, stating lack of evidence for dismissal and verification
compliance by Novo Jeans' counsel.

 Employees' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the

Supreme Court petition.

Issue:

1. Review and Re-assessment by CA: Whether the Court of Appeals

may review and re-assess the factual findings of the National Labor
Relations Commission in a petition for certiorari.

2. Validity of Verification: Whether the verification based on facts

relayed to the affiant by his clients is valid.

3. Illegal Dismissal: Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed by

the respondents.

Ruling:

1. Review and Re-assessment by CA: The Supreme Court ruled that

the Court of Appeals may review and re-assess the factual findings of
the NLRC in a petition for certiorari if the findings are not supported by
substantial evidence.

2. Validity of Verification: The Supreme Court found that the

verification based on facts relayed to the affiant by his clients was
invalid, rendering the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals
as an unsigned pleading.

3. Illegal Dismissal: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were
illegally dismissed and directed the respondents to reinstate the
petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority rights or
other privileges.

Ratio:

1. Review and Re-assessment by CA: The Supreme Court clarified that

while factual findings of labor officials are generally accorded respect
and finality, the CA can review these findings if they are arbitrary or
unsupported by substantial evidence. The CA must re-examine the
records when the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are
contradictory. In this case, the CA found that the NLRC's findings were
 not supported by substantial evidence, justifying its review and
reversal of the NLRC's decision.

2. Validity of Verification: The Supreme Court emphasized that

verification must be based on personal knowledge or authentic
records. Verification based on facts relayed by clients is insufficient as
it does not ensure the truthfulness of the allegations. The Court found
that the respondents' counsel did not have sufficient personal
knowledge to verify the facts, making the verification invalid.
Additionally, the certification of non-forum shopping signed by the
counsel was also invalid for the sole proprietorships, as they have no
separate legal personality from their proprietors.

3. Illegal Dismissal: The Supreme Court held that in labor cases, the
burden of proof is on the employer to show that the dismissal was for a
valid cause and that due process was followed. The respondents failed
to provide evidence that the petitioners received the First Notice of
Termination of Employment. The lack of evidence suggested that the
notices were an afterthought. The Court also found no proof of
abandonment by the petitioners, as mere absence from work is
insufficient to prove abandonment without a clear intent to sever the
employment relationship. Given the equipoise rule, the Court resolved
the doubt in favor of the employees, concluding that they were illegally
dismissed. The Court noted that the dismissal was not only without just
cause but also potentially violated the employees' constitutional right
to freedom of expression. However, due to insufficient proof of the
dismissal's intent to suppress constitutional rights, the Court limited its
conclusion to illegal dismissal under the Labor Code.

*****

3.
Title: Salabe vs. Social Security Commission

Case: G.R. No. 223018

Decision Date: Aug 27, 2020

Facts:

 The case involves petitioner Leonarda Jamago Salabe, who challenged

the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Social Security
 Commission (SSC) regarding her Social Security System (SSS)
membership and pension benefits.

 Salabe worked as a helper in Ana Macas' carinderia at the Jagna Public

Market, Bohol, from August 1978 to February 1979.

 Ana registered Salabe for social security purposes, making her a bona
fide SSS member.

 After her employment ended, Salabe continued as a voluntary paying

member, making 137 contributions.

 In 1993, upon reaching 60, Salabe applied for and received retirement
benefits.

 In 2001, the SSS unilaterally terminated her pension, citing the

absence of an employer-employee relationship between her and Ana.

 Salabe filed a petition with the SSC, which was dismissed, and the SSC
ordered her to refund the pensions paid to her.

 The Court of Appeals affirmed the SSC's decision, leading Salabe to

seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Was there an employer-employee relationship between Leonarda

Jamago Salabe and Ana Macas?

2. Was the cancellation of Salabe's SSS membership and retirement

pension justified?

3. Did the SSC violate Salabe's right to due process?

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside
the decisions of the Court of Appeals.

 The Court ordered the reinstatement of Salabe's SSS membership.

 The Court validated her 137 contributions.

 The Court restored her retirement benefits.

 The Court mandated the payment of her accrued retirement benefits

with interest.

Ratio:
  The Supreme Court found that Salabe was deprived of due process
when the SSS unilaterally canceled her membership and pension
without affording her an opportunity to be heard.

 The Court emphasized that retirees have a vested right to benefits

protected by the due process clause.

 The SSC's investigation, which led to the cancellation of Ana's

membership and subsequently Salabe's, was not supported by
substantial evidence.

 The Court found the affidavits and testimonies of Salabe's witnesses

credible, establishing the employer-employee relationship between her
and Ana.

 The Court noted that the SSC's sweeping cancellation of all of Ana's
employees' memberships was unjust, especially when some were
legitimate employees.

 The Court applied the liberality rule, considering Salabe as a self-

employed or voluntary paying member, thus entitling her to retirement
benefits.

 The decision underscored the humanitarian purpose of social

legislation, aiming to provide sustenance and comfort to retirees.

*****

4.
Title: People vs. Tolentino

Case: G.R. No. 208686

Decision Date: Jul 1, 2015

Facts:

 Alelie Tolentino, also known as Alelie Tolentino y Hernandez, faced

charges for large-scale illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa.

 The offenses occurred between August and November 2001 in

Muntinlupa City, Philippines.

 Tolentino, in collaboration with Narcisa Santos, advertised job

opportunities abroad, promising employment to numerous individuals.
  The complainants included Lederle Panesa, Orlando Layoso, Jimmy
Lejos, Marcelino Lejos, and Donna Magboo.

 Victims were persuaded to pay significant placement fees based on

false assurances regarding job availability and travel document
processing.

 Tolentino failed to fulfill her promises, prompting complaints from the

victims.

 The trial court found Tolentino guilty, a ruling that was upheld by the
Court of Appeals.

 She received a sentence of life imprisonment, a fine, and was ordered

to compensate the victims for their losses.

Issue:

 Did Alelie Tolentino engage in large-scale illegal recruitment without

the necessary license or authority?

 Was Tolentino guilty of estafa for defrauding the complainants through

deceitful representations?

 What is the appropriate penalty for Tolentino's crimes?

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, confirming

Tolentino's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for large-scale illegal
recruitment and estafa.

 The Court modified the penalties, imposing life imprisonment and a

fine of P1,000,000 for illegal recruitment.

 Specific prison terms and indemnifications were determined for each

count of estafa.

Ratio:
  Tolentino's conduct was classified as illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code and Republic Act No. 8042, as she operated without a
license and targeted multiple victims.

 The prosecution presented compelling evidence, including testimonies

from the complainants and a certification from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) indicating Tolentino's lack of
authority.

 Illegal recruitment is considered large scale when it affects three or

more individuals, which was clearly demonstrated in this case.

 The elements of estafa were satisfied, as Tolentino misled

complainants into believing she could secure them jobs abroad,
leading to financial losses.

 The penalties were adjusted to reflect the gravity of the offenses,

particularly due to the economic repercussions of large-scale illegal
recruitment.

*****

5.
Title: San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations
Commission

Case: G.R. No. 80774

Decision Date: May 31, 1988

Facts:

 Parties Involved: San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as the petitioner, and

the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Rustico Vega as
respondents.

 Date of Decision: May 31, 1988.

 Justice: Feliciano.

 Background: Rustico Vega, a mechanic in the Bottling Department at

SMC Plant Brewery in Tipolo, Mandaue City, submitted an innovation
proposal under SMC's Innovation Program on September 23, 1980.
  Proposal: Titled "Modified Grande Pasteurization Process," aimed to
improve the quality and taste of San Miguel Beer Grande.

 SMC's Response: Rejected Vega's proposal and denied his demands

for a cash award.

 Complaint: Vega filed a complaint on February 22, 1983, seeking a

cash prize of P60,000.00 and attorney's fees.

 SMC's Defense: Argued the proposal lacked originality, was not

implemented, and that Vega bypassed grievance procedures.

 Labor Arbiter's Decision: Dismissed the complaint for lack of

jurisdiction but awarded Vega P2,000.00 as "financial assistance."

 Appeals: Both parties appealed; NLRC directed SMC to pay Vega

P60,000.00.

 Petition for Certiorari: SMC filed to annul the NLRC's decision, citing
lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:

1. Jurisdiction: Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction
over the money claim arising from the Innovation Program.

2. Applicable Law: Whether Vega's money claim should be resolved

under labor law or general civil law.

Ruling:

1. Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC do not have jurisdiction over the money claim.

2. Applicable Law: The Supreme Court decided that the money claim
should be resolved under general civil law.

Ratio:

 Article 217 of the Labor Code: The Court interpreted this article,
emphasizing that the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the NLRC is
limited to cases connected with the employer-employee relationship.

 Principle of Noscitur a Sociis: Applied to determine that "money

claims of workers" refer to claims with a reasonable causal connection
to the employer-employee relationship.
  Nature of the Claim: The SMC Innovation Program was an employee
incentive scheme, and Vega's claim arose from his employment
relationship. However, resolving the claim required expertise in general
civil law, specifically contract law.

 Jurisdiction: Determining the existence and breach of an enforceable

contract falls under civil law, thus regular courts of justice have
jurisdiction, not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

 Outcome: The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Certiorari, set
aside the NLRC's decision, and dismissed Vega's complaint without
prejudice to his right to file a suit in the proper court.

*****

6.
Title: Libcap Marketing Corp. vs. Baquial

Case: G.R. No. 192011

Decision Date: Jun 30, 2014

Facts:

 Lanny Jean B. Baquial was hired as an accounting clerk by Libcap

Marketing Corporation on October 12, 1999.

 Her duties included overseeing daily sales, collections, and bank

deposits.

 An audit in March 2003 uncovered discrepancies in Baquial's deposit

reports, notably a double entry for an April 2, 2001 deposit.

 Baquial attributed the error to a bank mistake, but Libcap confirmed

only one deposit was made.

 As a result, Baquial was subjected to preventive suspension and

subsequently terminated on August 16, 2003, for dishonesty and
embezzlement.

 Baquial filed a labor complaint for illegal dismissal with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

 The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, citing a lack of procedural due
process, and awarded her backwages.
  The NLRC upheld this ruling, but the Court of Appeals modified it,
granting nominal damages of P100,000.00 instead of backwages.

 Libcap challenged this modification, leading to the current case.

Issue:

 Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that there was a failure to
comply with the procedural due process requirement in Baquial's
dismissal?

 Was the award of P100,000.00 in nominal damages appropriate given

the case's circumstances?

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' finding of a due

process violation in Baquial's dismissal.

 The Court adjusted the nominal damages awarded, reducing it from

P100,000.00 to P30,000.00.

Ratio:

 The Supreme Court acknowledged that while there was just cause for
Baquial's dismissal, the absence of a fair opportunity for her to defend
herself constituted a violation of her right to due process.

 The Court noted that prior salary deductions suggested a pre-judgment

of Baquial's guilt, which compromised the integrity of the
investigation.

 Concerning nominal damages, the Court clarified that these are

intended to vindicate a right rather than to compensate for losses.

 The revised amount of P30,000.00 was considered appropriate,

reflecting the due process violation and aligning with judicial
precedents that emphasize the importance of procedural fairness in
employment terminations.

*****

7.
Title: Wesleyan University-Philippines vs. Maglaya Sr.

Case: G.R. No. 212774

 Decision Date: Jan 23, 2017

Facts:

 Wesleyan University-Philippines (WUP) is a non-stock, non-profit, non-

sectarian educational corporation.

 Atty. Guillermo T. Maglaya, Sr. was appointed as a corporate member

on January 1, 2004, and elected as a member of the Board of Trustees
on January 9, 2004, both for five-year terms.

 Maglaya was elected President of the University on May 25, 2005, for
another five-year term.

 On November 28, 2008, the United Methodist Church Bishops informed

corporate members that their terms would expire on December 31,
2008, unless renewed.

 Maglaya sought renewal but was informed on April 24, 2009, that new
corporate members and trustees had been appointed.

 On April 27, 2009, Maglaya was notified of his termination as President.

 Maglaya and former Board members filed a Complaint for Injunction

and Damages, which was dismissed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.

 Maglaya filed an illegal dismissal case with the NLRC, which was
initially dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction.

 The NLRC reversed this decision, ruling in favor of Maglaya and

awarding him multiple forms of compensation.

 The CA dismissed WUP's petition for certiorari, and WUP elevated the
case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

 Does the NLRC have jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case filed by
Maglaya?

 Is Maglaya considered a corporate officer or a mere employee?

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC does not have jurisdiction over
the case.
 The Court determined that Maglaya is a corporate officer, not a mere
employee.

Ratio:

 The Supreme Court found that the NLRC wrongly assumed jurisdiction
over Maglaya's complaint for illegal dismissal.

 Determining if an individual is a corporate officer or a mere employee

is crucial for identifying an intra-corporate controversy.

 Under the Corporation Code and WUP's by-laws, the President of the
University is a corporate officer appointed by the Board of Trustees, not
a mere employee.

 The position of President is explicitly mentioned in the by-laws, making

it a corporate office.

 Disputes involving the dismissal of a corporate officer fall under the

jurisdiction of regular courts, not labor tribunals.

 The finality of the NLRC's decision does not preclude judicial review via
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

 The CA erred in applying the doctrine of immutability of judgment, as

the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period.

 The dismissal of a corporate officer is a corporate act and an intra-

corporate controversy, which should be resolved by regular courts.

 Thus, the NLRC's decision was void for lack of jurisdiction, and Maglaya
was ordered to reimburse the amount awarded by the NLRC.

*****

8.
Title: IN RE: Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Social Security
Commission

Case: G.R. No. L-15045

Decision Date: Jan 20, 1961

Facts:
 On September 1, 1958, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila
sought exemption from the Social Security Law of 1954 for "Catholic
Charities" and other religious and charitable institutions operated by
the Archbishop.

 The argument was that the Act is a labor law for profit-organized
businesses and should not include religious and charitable institutions.

 The Social Security Commission denied the request through Resolution

No. 572, series of 1958.

 The Archbishop reiterated the arguments and raised constitutional

objections, but the Commission again denied the request in Resolution
No. 767, series of 1958.

 The petitioner-appellant appealed the decision under section 5 (c) of

Republic Act No. 1161, as amended.

Issue:

1. Does the Social Security Law cover religious and charitable institutions
under the term "employer"?

2. Does the inclusion of religious organizations under the Social Security

Law violate the constitutional prohibition against the application of
public funds for the use, benefit, or support of any priest?

3. Does the enforcement of the Social Security Law impair the right of the
Church to disseminate religious information?

Ruling:

1. Yes, the Social Security Law covers religious and charitable institutions
under the term "employer."

2. No, the inclusion of religious organizations under the Social Security

Law does not violate the constitutional prohibition against the
application of public funds for the use, benefit, or support of any priest.

3. No, the enforcement of the Social Security Law does not impair the
right of the Church to disseminate religious information.

Ratio:

 The Supreme Court ruled that "employer" in the Social Security Law is
broad enough to include religious and charitable institutions.
 The law contains specific exceptions where such institutions are not
included, indicating legislative intent.

 The removal of exclusions for religious or charitable institutions from

Republic Act No. 1161 indicates the intent to include them.

 Funds contributed to the Social Security System are trust funds

belonging to members, not public funds, thus not violating the
constitutional prohibition.

 The Social Security Law is a legitimate exercise of police power aimed

at protecting employees against various hazards, promoting social
justice and economic security.

 The law requires monthly contributions from the Church for covered
employees, which are not taxes but protective measures for employee
welfare.

 The Supreme Court affirmed Resolutions Nos. 572 and 767, series of
1958, of the Social Security Commission, with costs against the
appellant.

*****

9.
Title: Telus International Philippines, Inc. vs. De Guzman

Case: G.R. No. 202676

Decision Date: Dec 4, 2019

Facts:

 Telus International Philippines, Inc. (Telus) and Michael Sy are the

petitioners.

 Harvey De Guzman is the respondent.

 De Guzman was hired by Telus in September 2004 as an Inbound Sales

Associate and later promoted to Senior Quality Analyst for DELL After
Point of Sale (DELL, APoS).

 On August 2, 2008, Telus received a complaint from Jeanelyn Flores,

Team Captain of DELL APoS, accusing De Guzman of disrespect and
ridicule based on a chat message exchange on July 31, 2008.
 Telus issued a Due Process form to De Guzman on August 4, 2008,
placing him on preventive suspension and directing him to submit a
written explanation.

 An administrative hearing on August 11, 2008, found De Guzman not

liable, and his suspension was lifted.

 Telus decided to transfer De Guzman to another practice, leading to his

"floating status."

 De Guzman filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with monetary

claims before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of De Guzman, awarding him

separation pay, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.

 Telus appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter's

decision.

 De Guzman filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals

(CA), which reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision.

 Telus filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Was De Guzman constructively dismissed by Telus?

2. Did Telus' actions constitute a valid exercise of management

prerogative?

3. Was the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

submitted by De Guzman defective?

Ruling:

1. Yes, De Guzman was constructively dismissed by Telus.

2. No, Telus' actions did not constitute a valid exercise of management

prerogative.

3. The issue of the alleged defective Verification and Certification of Non-

Forum Shopping was rendered moot.

Ratio:
 The Supreme Court found that De Guzman was constructively
dismissed as Telus' actions created a hostile and intolerable working
environment.

 Despite being exonerated from the charges, De Guzman was not

reinstated to his former position and was placed on floating status
without valid justification.

 The Court emphasized that the security of tenure guaranteed by labor

laws and the Constitution was disregarded by Telus.

 The profiling interviews and floating status imposed on De Guzman

were deemed unreasonable and prejudicial, effectively amounting to a
demotion.

 The Court rejected Telus' argument that its actions were a valid
exercise of management prerogative, stating that the company failed
to provide substantial evidence to justify its actions.

 Regarding the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping,

the Court held that the issue was moot given the merits of the case
and the overriding need to serve the ends of justice.

 Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision with

modifications, ordering Telus to pay De Guzman full backwages,
separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees,
with interest.

*****

10.
Title: Sagun vs. ANZ Global Services and Operations , Inc.

Case: G.R. No. 220399

Decision Date: Aug 22, 2016

Facts:

 Petitioner Enrique Y. Sagun was employed at HSBC-EDPI.

 Sagun applied online for the position of Payments and Cash Processing
Lead at ANZ.

 After passing the interview and online exam, ANZ offered him the
position of Customer Service Officer, Payments and Cash Resolution.
 Sagun accepted the offer on June 8, 2011.

 The employment agreement required satisfactory pre-employment

screening results.

 Sagun resigned from HSBC-EDPI on June 11, 2011, and submitted his
pre-employment documents to ANZ.

 On July 11, 2011, ANZ retracted the job offer due to inconsistencies in
Sagun's background check, particularly regarding his previous
employment at Siemens.

 Sagun filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against
ANZ, Cruzada, and Alcaraz before the NLRC.

 The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling no employer-

employee relationship existed due to the valid withdrawal of the job
offer.

 The NLRC affirmed the decision, and the Court of Appeals upheld the
NLRC's ruling.

 Sagun filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme

Court.

Issue:

 Did the Court of Appeals err in not finding grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the NLRC in holding that no employer-employee relationship
existed between Sagun and ANZ?

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision
dated May 25, 2015, and the Resolution dated August 27, 2015, of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 127777.

Ratio:

 The Supreme Court held that there was a perfected contract of

employment when Sagun signed ANZ's employment offer.

 The employment was conditional upon the satisfactory completion of

background checks.
 Discrepancies in Sagun's declared information and documents,
particularly regarding his previous employment at Siemens, rendered
the background check unsatisfactory.

 ANZ's obligations as a would-be employer were held in suspense, and

no employer-employee relationship was created.

 In contracts with suspensive conditions, obligations do not come into

effect until the conditions are fulfilled.

 Since Sagun failed to meet the conditions, including reporting for work
on or before July 11, 2011, ANZ was justified in withdrawing the job
offer.

 The dismissal of Sagun's complaint for illegal termination was correctly

sustained by the CA.