Sagun v. ANZ

LESSON
Sagun v. ANZ Global Services

PONENTE
Employment contract of sagun with ANZ provided condition to be subject to background checks. Employment withdrawn due to discrepancy in
his statements. NO er-ee rel’nship thus no illegal dismissal.
FACTS
1. Sagun was employed at HSBC-EDPI when he applied online for the position of Payments and Cash Processing Lead at respondent ANZ
Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc. (ANZ)
2. After passing the interview and online examination, ANZ, thru SVP (Cruzada), offered him the position of Customer Service Officer, Payments
and Cash Resolution, which the latter accepted on June 8, 2011.
3. The letter of confirmation/ employment agreement provided: employment is conditional on ANZ being satisfied that the results of:
 any other required background or other checks are to the satisfaction of ANZ
 If, in the opinion of ANZ, any of your background checks, reference checks or visas are not satisfactory, ANZ may choose not to
commence your employment, or where you have already started, to end your employment immediately, with no liability to pay
compensation to you.
4. The Schedules provided that petitioner was to be placed on a probationary status for a period of six (6) months and that his appointment
would take effect from the date of reporting, which was to be not later than July 11, 2011.
5. on June 11, 2011, petitioner tendered his resignation at HSBC-EDPI and the acknowledged copy thereof was transmitted to ANZ together
with his other pre-employment documentary requirements.
6. On July 11, 2011, petitioner was handed a letter of retraction signed by ANZ's Human Resources Business Partner, (Alcaraz), 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that the job offer had been withdrawn on the ground that the company found material inconsistencies in his declared information and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 conducting a background check with his previous employer, particularly at Siemens.
7. petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against ANZ, Cruzada, and Alcaraz (respondents) before the NLRC
insisting that employment contract had already been perfected upon his acceptance of the offer on June 8, 2011.
8. ANZ: NLRC had no jurisdiction as they have no employer-employee relationship with petitioner, offer was conditional and the effectivity of
petitioner's employment contract was subject to a term or period. Discrepancies: hat he only held the position of a Level 1 and not a Level
2 Technical Support Representative at Siemens; terminated for cause due to his absence without official leave (AWOL). likewise failed to
report for work on or before July 11, 2011
9. LA dismissed the complaint, : no perfected employment contract between petitioner and respondents since there was a valid cause for the
withdrawal of the offer that was made prior to the commencement of petitioner's service
10. NLRC affirmed the findings of the LA, CA affirmed.
ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in holding that no employer-employee relationship existed
between petitioner and respondent. NO.
 An employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the moment the parties come to agree upon its terms and conditions,
and thereafter, concur in the essential elements thereof.
 Court agrees with the finding of the CA that there was already a perfected contract of employment when petitioner signed ANZ's
employment offer and agreed to the terms and conditions that were embodied therein.
o Nonetheless, the offer of employment extended to petitioner contained several conditions before he may be deemed an
employee of ANZ: satisfactory completion of any checks that may be required by ANZ
o petitioner's employment with ANZ depended on the outcome of his background check, which partakes of the nature
of a suspensive condition, and hence, renders the obligation of the would-be employer conditional
 Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already
acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition.
 Jurisprudence states that when a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its effectivity shall take place only if and when the event
which constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled.
o perfected contract may exist, although the obligations arising therefrom - if premised upon a suspensive condition - would yet
to be put into effect.
o Here, the subject employment contract required a satisfactory completion of petitioner's background check before he may be
deemed an employee of ANZ.
o Considering, however, that petitioner failed to explain the discrepancies in his declared information and documents that were
required from him relative to his work experience at Siemens, that rendered his background check unsatisfactory, ANZ's
obligations as a would-be employer were held in suspense and thus, had yet to acquire any obligatory force.
o until and unless petitioner complied with the satisfactory background check, there exists no obligation on the part
of ANZ to recognize and fully accord him the rights under the employment contract.
 no employer-employee relationship was said to have been created
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
petition is DENIED

Sagun v. ANZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sagun v. ANZ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sagun v. ANZ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LESSON

Sagun v. ANZ Global Services

ISSUE with HOLDING

You might also like