G.R. No. 238581 , December 07, 2022
STEVEN ROUCHE, PETITIONER, VS. FRENCH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN THE PHILIPPINES-LE CLUB, CHRISTOPHE RIOUT, AND RAYMOND LIONS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Steven Rouche was initially engaged by respondent French Chamber of Commerce as a Consultant under a Consultancy Agreement effective upon approval of a pre-arranged employment visa 9(g) and Alien Employment Permit (AEP). He secured these documents. On May 1, 2014, the Consultancy Agreement was replaced by an Employment Contract appointing Rouche as Managing Director for three years. No renewal of his 9(g) visa or AEP was secured for this new role. On May 4, 2015, respondent Christophe Riout terminated Rouche’s services on the ground of loss of trust without specifying particular acts, offering a resignation for better compensation, which Rouche refused. The termination was confirmed in a board meeting, and his replacement was announced publicly. Rouche filed a case for illegal dismissal. The French Chamber of Commerce sought dismissal, arguing Rouche lacked a valid visa and AEP, rendering his employment void. The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal, noting both parties were in pari delicto regarding the permits, and ordered payment of backwages and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, citing Rouche’s failure to secure the required permits for his new position. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, ruling his employment contract as Managing Director was void for lack of Department of Labor and Employment approval and that he came to court with unclean hands. Rouche filed a Petition for Review, arguing the cited jurisprudence was inapplicable and that his counsel’s negligence (Paras & Manlapaz, who later represented the respondents) prevented the renewal of his permits.

ISSUE

Whether or not an alien employee who was illegally dismissed but whose visa and permit were not processed due to the negligence of his employer’s counsel is barred from seeking relief under the Labor Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision with modification. The Court held that an alien employee illegally dismissed, whose failure to secure the necessary visa and permit was due to the negligence of the employer’s counsel, is not barred from seeking relief. The Court distinguished this case from WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. v. Galera and McBurnie v. Ganzon, noting that in those cases, the foreign nationals knowingly and voluntarily worked without permits. Here, Rouche relied on the reassurances of Paras & Manlapaz, the law firm engaged by his employer, to process his documents. Their failure constituted negligence attributable to the employer. The principle of in pari delicto does not apply when the employee’s failure to secure permits is due to the employer’s or its agent’s fault. The Court found Rouche was illegally dismissed as the employer failed to substantiate the charge of loss of trust and did not afford him due process. He is entitled to full backwages and other benefits from dismissal until finality of the decision. The employer’s counsel’s conflict of interest and negligence were also noted.