Dreamland Hotel v.

Johnson
Facts:
1. Dreamland Hotel c/o its president, Prentice, averred that he engaged the
services of fellow Australian, Johnson, who allegedly offered to invest in the
formers hotel.
2. Prentice required Johnson to submit his Alien Employment Permit (AEP) and
Tax Identification Number (TIN), which Johnson supposedly promised to
accomplish.
3. The two had an employment agreement which stipulated that Johnson will
serve as operations manager for 3 years.
4. Prentice asked Johnson for the latters AEP and TIN. Johnson purportedly
claimed that he already has the documents in his possession. Three weeks
after commencing hotel operations, Johnson stopped reporting for work.
5. Johnson, on the other hand, claims he was not the one who offered to invest
in Dreamland, stating that it was Prentice who actively advertised the
position of resort manager.
6. During engagement, Prentice convinced Johnson to give the former a loan so
that the hotel can commence operations. Johnson accepted the resort
manager position while loaning Prentice $100k.
7. Johnson avers that he was not paid his stipulated salary, denied benefits, and
was not given authority due him as a resort manager. He was eventually
forced to submit his resignation, of which Prentice considered to be in effect
immediately.
8. Johnson filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries. LA
ruled for Prentice, stating that Johnson voluntarily resigned. NLRC reversed.
Issue:
WON the employment contract of Johnson is inefficacious because the said contract
is subject to the presentation of Johnson of his AEP and TIN.
Held:
No. Johnson has adduced proof that as a permanent resident, he is exempted from
the requirement of securing an AEP as expressed under Department Order No. 7506, Series of 2006 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), which we
quote:
Rule I- Coverage and Exemption
xxxx
2. Exemption. The following categories of foreign nationals are exempt from
securing an employment permit:
xxxx
2.7 Resident foreign nationals

Furthermore, Johnson submitted a Certification from DOLE Regional Office III, stating
that he is exempted from securing an AEP as a holder of Permanent Resident Visa.

Consequently, the condition imposed upon Johnsons employment, if there is any, is

in truth without effect to its validity.
Anent the requirement of securing a TIN to make the contract of employment
efficacious, records show that Johnson secured his TIN only on December 200728
after his resignation as operations manager. Nevertheless, this does not negate the
fact that the contract of employment had already become effective even prior to
such date.
In addition to the foregoing, there is no stipulation in the employment contract itself
that the same shall only be effective upon the submission of AEP and TIN. The
petitioners did not present any proof to support this agreement prior to the
execution of the employment contract.