GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION AND EARL TIMOTHY CONE, petitioners

Vs
HON Ruben Torres

NATURE: Petition for Certiorari , alleging that:

1. respondent Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion when he revoked

petitioner Cone's alien employment permit; and

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.

FACTS:

Tim Cone obtained an employment certificate from Department of Labor on May 1, 1989 and
was them employed as coach of GMC’s basketball team.

GMC renewed Cone’s permit, and it was granted 15 Feb 1990.

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.

GMC filed an MR with supplemental motions but said motions were denied by acting Labor
Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma.

GMC filed certiorari on this court alleging that:

1. respondent Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion when he revoked

petitioner Cone's alien employment permit; and

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.

ISSUE:

 WHETHER hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative

  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

HELD: NO. As stated in art 40 of LC.

Article 40 of the Labor Code reads as follows:

Art. 40. Employment per unit 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.

On the second issue: 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