TOPIC: EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

WPP Marketing v. Galera, GR 169207, 25 March 2010

Facts:

Petitioner Jocelyn M. Galera is an American citizen, who was hired by respondent John Steedman, Chairman of WPP Worldwide
and Chief Executive Officer of Mindshare, Co., a corporation based in Hong Kong, China, to work in the Philippines for private
respondent WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. (WPP), a corporation registered and operating under the laws of the
Philippines.
Under the employment contract, Galera would commence employment on September 1, 1999, with the position of Managing
Director of Mindshare Philippines. Thus, without obtaining an alien employment permit, Galera commenced her employment with
WPP Philippines on the said date. It was only after four months from the time she commenced employment that private
respondent WPP filed before the Bureau of Immigration an application for petitioner Galera to receive a working visa. In the
application, she was designated as Vice-President of WPP. Petitioner alleged that she was constrained to sign the application in
order that she could remain in the Philippines and retain her employment.

On December 14, 2000, private respondent Galera was verbally informed by Steedman that her employment had been
terminated. She received her termination letter the following day. Her termination prompted Galera to commence a complaint for
illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter found WPP, Steedman, Webster, and Lansang liable for illegal
dismissal and damages. Furthermore, the labor arbiter stated that Galera was not only illegally dismissed but was also not
accorded due process, saying that Galera was not given an opportunity by WPP to defend herself and explain her side. Thus,
WPP did not observe both substantive and procedural due process in terminating Galera’s employment. The labor arbiter
ordered WPP to reinstate Galera and to pay her back wages, transportation and housing benefits, and moral and exemplary
damages, among others.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s ruling. The NLRC ruled that Galera was WPP’s Vice- President, and therefore,
a corporate officer at the time she was removed by the Board of Directors on 14 December 2000. The NLRC ruled that the labor
arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case because being a corporate officer, a case arising from her termination is considered as
an intra- corporate dispute, which was cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission under P.D. 902- A (but now by
the Regional Trial Courts designated as Commercial Courts by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 5.2 of RA No.8799). The
Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC. It ruled that Galera’s appointment by the Board of Directors of the WPP as Vice President
for Media had no legal effect as WPP’s by-laws provided for only one Vice-President, which at that time was occupied.
Furthermore, WPP’s by-laws did not include a managing director as among its corporate officers. The Court of Appeals ordered
WPP to pay Galera back wages and separation pay, as well as housing benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s
fees, among others.

The case was subsequently elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

WON Galera is entitled to collect the award of back wages and damages even if she did not have an alien employment permit
when she commenced her employment in the Philippines.

Ruling:

No, Galera could not claim the employees benefits she is entitled under Philippine Labor Laws. The law and the rules are
consistent in stating that the employment permit must be acquired prior to employment. Article 40 of the Labor Code states: "Any
alien seeking admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who desires to
engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor. Section 4,
Rule XIV, book 1 of the Omnibus Rules Rules and Regulations provides, among others, that if an alien enters the country under
a non-working visa and wishes to be employed thereafter, he may only be allowed to be employed upon presentation of a duly
approved employment permit. Galera cannot come to this Court with unclean hands. To grant Galera’s prayer is to sanction the
violation of the Philippine labor laws requiring aliens to secure work permits before their employment. We hold that the status quo
must prevail in the present case, and we leave the parties where they are.