GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION AND EARL TIMOTHY CONE vs. HON.

TORRES, HON. LAGUESMA, AND BASKETBALL COACHES ASSOCIATION OF

THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 93666, April 22, 1991

FACTS: Earl Timothy Cone is a US citizen who was hired by General Milling Corporation
(GMC) as sports consultant and assistant coach. He was issued by NCR DOLE an Alien
Employment Permit. Eventually, his permit changed from temporary visitor to pre-
arranged employee. In 1990, GMC requested that Cone’s employment permit be changed
to a full-fledged coach, which was granted by DOLE.
Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines (BCAP) contested such permit on the
ground that there was no showing that there is no person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring of
petitioner Cone would redound to the national interest.
ISSUE: W/N the Sec. of Labor acted with grave abuse of discretion in revoking Cone’s
alien employment permit
RULING:
Petitioner GMC's claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative has no
legal basis at all. Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an employer seeking employment
of an alien must first obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor.
Petitioner GMC's right to choose whom to employ is, of course, limited by the statutory
requirement of an alien employment permit.
As pointed out by the Solicitor-General, no comparison can be made between petitioner
Cone and Mr. Norman Black as the latter is "a long time resident of the country," and thus,
not subject to the provisions of Article 40 of the Labor Code which apply only to "non-
resident aliens." In any case, the term "non-resident alien" and its obverse "resident
alien," here must be given their technical connotation under our law on immigration.
Neither can petitioners validly claim that implementation of respondent Secretary's
decision would amount to an impairment of the obligations of contracts. The provisions of
the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations requiring alien employment
permits were in existence long before petitioners entered into their contract of
employment. It is firmly settled that provisions of applicable laws, especially provisions
relating to matters affected with public policy, are deemed written into contracts. 2 Private
parties cannot constitutionally contract away the otherwise applicable provisions of law.

Petitioners' contention that respondent Secretary of Labor should have deferred to the
findings of Commission on Immigration and Deportation as to the necessity of
employing petitioner Cone, is, again, bereft of legal basis. The Labor Code itself
specifically empowers respondent Secretary to make a determination as to the
availability of the services of a "person in the Philippines who is competent, able and
willing at the time of application to perform the services for which an alien is desired."3

In short, the Department of Labor is the agency vested with jurisdiction to determine the
question of availability of local workers. The constitutional validity of legal provisions
granting such jurisdiction and authority and requiring proof of non-availability of local
nationals able to carry out the duties of the position involved, cannot be seriously
questioned.