VOL.

196, APRIL 22, 1991 215

General Milling Corporation vs. Torres
G.R. No. 93666. April 22, 1991.*
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and EARL TIMOTHY CONE, petitioners, vs. HON. RUBEN
D. TORRES, in his capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment, HON. BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment, and BASKETBALL
COACHES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Contracts; Provisions of applicable laws especially those relating to matters affected with public
policy, are deemed written into contracts.—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. Private parties cannot
constitutionally contract away the otherwise applicable provisions of law.
Labor Law; The Department of Labor is the agency vested with jurisdiction to determine the
question of availability of local workers.—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.” 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.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Department of Labor and Employment.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

216
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
General Milling Corporation vs. Torres
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Sobrevinas, Diaz, Hayudini & Bodegon Law Officefor petitioners.
Rodrigo, Cuevas & De Borja for respondent BCAP.
RESOLUTION

FELICIANO, J.:

On 1 May 1989, the National Capital Region of the Department of Labor and Employment issued
Alien Employment Permit No. M-0689-3-535 in favor of petitioner Earl Timothy Cone, a United
States citizen, as sports consultant and assistant coach for petitioner General Milling Corporation
(“GMC”).
On 27 December 1989, petitioners GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment whereby
the latter undertook to coach GMC’s basketball team.
 On 15 January 1990, the Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation approved petitioner Cone’s application for a change of admission status from temporary
visitor to prearranged employee.
On 9 February 1990, petitioner GMC requested renewal of petitioner Cone’s alien employment
permit. GMC also requested that it be allowed to employ Cone as full-fledged coach. The DOLE
Regional Director, Luna Piezas, granted the request on 15 February 1990.
On 18 February 1990, Alien Employment Permit No. M-0290-3-881, valid until 25 December
1990, was issued.
Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines (“BCAP”) appealed the
issuance of said alien employment permit to the respondent Secretary of Labor who, on 23 April
1990, issued a decision ordering cancellation of petitioner Cone’s employment 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.
Petitioner GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration and two (2) Supplemental Motions for
Reconsideration but said Motions were denied by Acting Secretary of Labor Bienvenido E.
217
VOL. 196, APRIL 22, 1991 217
General Milling Corporation vs. Torres
Laguesma in an Order dated 8 June 1990.
Petitioners are now before the Court on a Petition for Certiorari, dated 14 June 1990, alleging
that:

1. 1.respondent Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion when he revoked petitioner
Cone’s alien employment permit; and
2. 2.Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code is null
and void as it is in violation of the enabling law as the Labor Code does not empower
respondent Secretary to determine if the employment of an alien would redound to national
interest.

Deliberating on the present Petition for Certiorari, the Court considers that petitioners have failed to
show any grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of
respondent Secretary of Labor in rendering his decision, dated 23 April 1990, revoking petitioner
Cone’s Alien Employment Permit.
The alleged failure to notify petitioners of the appeal filed by private respondent BCAP was cured
when petitioners were allowed to file their Motion for Reconsideration before respondent Secretary of
Labor.1
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.
Petitioners will not find solace in the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 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.
_______________

1 De Leon v. Commission on Elections, 129 SCRA 117 (1984).

218
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
General Milling Corporation vs. Torres
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.
Petitioners apparently also question the validity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations,
specifically Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Implementing Rules, as imposing a condition not
found in the Labor Code itself. Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Implementing Rules, provides as
follows:
“Section 6. Issuance of Employment Permit—The Secretary of Labor may issue an employment
permit to the applicant based on:

1. (a)Compliance by the applicant and his employer with the requirements of Section 2 hereof;
2. (b)Report of the Bureau Director as to the availability or non-

_______________

E.g., Pakistan International Airways Corporation v. Hon. Blas F. Ople, et al., G.R. No. 61594,
2

28 September 1990; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. United States Lines Co., 5 SCRA
175 (1962).
3 Article 40 of the Labor Code.

219
VOL. 196, APRIL 22, 1991 219
General Milling Corporation vs. Torres

1. availability of any person in the Philippines who is competent and willing to do the job for
which the services of the applicant are desired.
2. (c)His assessment as to whether or not the employment of the applicant will redound to the
national interest;
3. (d)Admissibility of the alien as certified by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation;
4. (e)The recommendation of the Board of Investments or other appropriate government
agencies if the applicant will be employed in preferred areas of investments or in
accordance with the imperative of economic development;

x x x x x x x x”
(Italics supplied)

Article 40 of the Labor Code reads as follows:

“ART. 40. Employment permit of non-resident aliens.—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.
The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after a
determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and
willing at the time of application to perform the services for which the alien is desired.
For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said employment permit may be
issued upon recommendation of the government agency charged with the supervision of said
registered enterprise.” (Italics supplied)

Petitioners apparently suggest that the Secretary of Labor is not authorized to take into account the
question of whether or not employment of an alien applicant would “redound to the national interest”
because Article 40 does not explicitly refer to such assessment. This argument (which seems
impliedly to concede that the relationship of basketball coaching and the national interest is tenuous
and unreal) is not persuasive. In the first place, the second paragraph of Article 40 says: “[t]he
employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after a
determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and
willing at the time of application to perform the services for
220
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
General Milling Corporation vs. Torres
which the alien is desired.” The permissive language employed in the Labor Code indicates that the
authority granted involves the exercise of discretion on the part of the issuing authority. In the
second place, Article 12 of the Labor Code sets forth a statement of objectives that the Secretary of
Labor should, and indeed must, take into account in exercising his authority and jurisdiction granted
by the Labor Code:
“ART. 12. Statement of Objectives.—It is the policy of the State:

1. a)To promote and maintain a state of full employment through improved manpower training,
allocation and utilization;x x x x x x x x x
2. c)To facilitate a free choice of available employment by persons seeking work in conformity
with the national interest;
3. d)To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in conformity with the national
interest;
4. e)To regulate the employment of aliens, including the establishment of a registration and/or
work permit system;x x x x x x x x x”

Thus, we find petitioners’ arguments on the above points of constitutional law too insubstantial to
require further consideration.
Petitioners have very recently manifested to this Court that public respondent Secretary of Labor
has reversed his earlier decision and has issued an Employment Permit to petitioner Cone.
Petitioners seek to withdraw their Petition for Certiorari on the ground that it has become moot and
academic.
While ordinarily this Court would dismiss a petition that clearly appears to have become moot
and academic, the circumstances of this case and the nature of the questions raised by petitioners
are such that we do not feel justified in leaving those questions unanswered. 4 Moreover, assuming
that an alien employment permit has in fact been issued to petitioner Cone, the basis of the reversal
by the Secretary of Labor of his earlier decision does not appear in the record. If such reversal is
based on some view of constitutional law or labor law different from those here set out, then such
employment permit, if one has been issued, would appear open to serious legal objections.
_______________
 4 Cf. Javier v. Commission on Elections, 144 SCRA 194 (1986).

221
VOL. 196, APRIL 22, 1991 221
Guingona, Jr. vs. Carague
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit. Costs
against petitioners.
Fernan (C.J., Chairman), Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., In the result.

Petition dismissed.
Note.—The doctrine of sole and exclusive competence of the labor tribunal in cases involving or
originating from labor dispute has been constantly upheld by the Supreme Court. (Filipinas Life
Assurance Company, Inc. vs. Bleza,139 SCRA 565.)

——o0o——