SAGUN VS.

ANZ GLOBAL

FACTS: Sagun was employed in HSBC when he applied for a position in ANZ Global.
After passing the recruitment hurdles, he was offered a positioned therein. Sagun
accepted the offer, subject to a satisfactory pre-employment screening. The contract
stipulated that, if ANZ finds the pre-employment screening unsatisfactory, ANZ may opt
not to commence the petitioner’s employment or, if he had already started, the ANZ
may terminate the same with no liability to pay compensation. Accordingly, petitioner
resigned from HSBC and reported to ANZ. He was handed a letter of retraction
informing him that the job offer had been withdrawn on the ground that the company
found material inconsistencies in his declared information and documents provided,
after conduct of background check with his previous employer, Siemens. The LA
dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no perfected employment contract.
NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision ruling that there was no EER between the parties. The
CA ruled that the employment contract did not commence since respondents did not
allow petitioner to begin work due to the misrepresentations he made in his application
form.

ISSUE: Whether the employment contract was perfected and should govern.

RULING: No. An employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the
moment the parties come to agree upon its terms and conditions. The parties may
establish such stipulations, terms, conditions, as they may deem convenient. While the
contract was perfected, the employment was subject to several conditions and non-
compliance therewith may be grounds to annul the same.