Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sagun Vs ANZ Global

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Golangco
    79 views2 pages
    Sagun vs ANZ global involved a dispute over the withdrawal of a job offer by ANZ. Petitioner Sagun accepted a job offer from ANZ that was conditional on satisfactory results from background checks. ANZ later withdrew the offer, claiming inconsistencies were found during the background check with Sagun's previous employer. Sagun argued an employment contract was already perfected, but ANZ contended the offer was conditional and no employment relationship was formed until the conditions were met. The NLRC ruled that no employment relationship existed because the effectiveness of the contract was subject to Sagun complying with the background check conditions, which he failed to do.

    Original Description:

    Sagun vs ANZ Global digest

    Original Title

    Sagun vs ANZ Global

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Sagun vs ANZ global involved a dispute over the withdrawal of a job offer by ANZ. Petitioner Sagun accepted a job offer from ANZ that was conditional on satisfactory results from background checks. ANZ later withdrew the offer, claiming inconsistencies were found during the background check with Sagun's previous employer. Sagun argued an employment contract was already perfected, but ANZ contended the offer was conditional and no employment relationship was formed until the conditions were met. The NLRC ruled that no employment relationship existed because the effectiveness of the contract was subject to Sagun complying with the background check conditions, which he failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    79 views2 pages

    Sagun Vs ANZ Global

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Golangco
    Sagun vs ANZ global involved a dispute over the withdrawal of a job offer by ANZ. Petitioner Sagun accepted a job offer from ANZ that was conditional on satisfactory results from background checks. ANZ later withdrew the offer, claiming inconsistencies were found during the background check with Sagun's previous employer. Sagun argued an employment contract was already perfected, but ANZ contended the offer was conditional and no employment relationship was formed until the conditions were met. The NLRC ruled that no employment relationship existed because the effectiveness of the contract was subject to Sagun complying with the background check conditions, which he failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sagun vs ANZ global

    Facts
    - pet was employed at HSBC-EDPI when he applied online for
    the position of payments and cash processing lead at ANZ
    global services
    - anz- domestic corp who business involved a full range of
    banking products and services
    - cruzada offered petitioner the position of customer service
    officer and cash resolution
    - the terms and conditions of his employment required among
    others, a satisfactory result of his pre-employment
    screening
    1. police record check prior to commencing work with anz or
    at other times during your employment
    2. bankruptcy checks, sanction screening, reference checks
    and etc
    - initial and ongoing employment is conditional on ANZ being
    satisfied with the result of such test
    - and conditional upon holding all necessary visas and
    meeting all immigration requirements necessary for you to
    work in ph
    - his employment will be on probationary status
    - appointment would take effect from the date of reporting
    which was to be not later than july 11, 2011
    - on july 11, 2011 pet was instructed to report to ANZ and
    has handed a letter of retraction
    o job offer had been withdrawn on the ground that the
    company had found material inconsistencies in his
    declared information and documents provided after
    conducting background check with his previous employer
    (siemens)
    Petitioner’s contention
    - employment contract had already been perfected upon his
    acceptance of the offer on june 8, 2011
    - filed a complaint for ID with money claims against
    respondents

    Respondent’s contention
    - nlrc had no jurisdiction over the complaint, no er-ee rel
    with the petitioner
    - offer was conditional and the effectivity of pet’s
    employment contract was subject to a term or period
    - pet made material misrepresentations in his job
    applications and interview that prompted them to withdraw
    the offer
    o only held position of level 1 not level 2 technical
    support rep at siemens
    o terminated for cause due to his awol
    o failed to report to work on or before june 11, 2011
    hence his employment never took effect and no er-ee
    rel was created
    Issue: WON there was an er-ee rel

    Held :
    No. 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.

    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.

    A perfected contract may exist although the obligations arising


    therefrom if premised upon a suspensive condition- would yet to
    be put into effect. In a contract with a suspensive condition, if
    the condition does not happen, the obligation does not come into
    effect. Until and unless petitioner complied with the
    satisfactory background check, there exist no obligation or the
    part of anz to recognize and fully accord him the rights the
    employment contract. Records show that petitioner failed to
    report for work on or before july 11,2011 which was also a
    suspensive condition mandated under par 4 of schedule 1 of the
    contract.

    You might also like