Epekto kapag walang “employment permit” ang isang dayuhan

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | December 2, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Maaari bang magsampa ng reklamo sa paggawa ang isang hindi residente na dayuhan kahit wala siyang nakuha o natanggap na permit sa pagtatrabaho rito sa ating bansa? Maraming salamat sa paglilinaw. -- Princess

---

Dear Princess, 

Ang sagot sa iyong katanungan ay matatagpuan sa ating mga batas, at mga kaugnay na kaso. Ayon sa Artikulo 40 ng Kautusang Pampangulo Blg. 442 ng 1974, na may mga pagbabago at muling pagbibilang ng mga seksyon, o mas kilala sa tawag na “Labor Code of the Philippines”:

“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. xxx”

Hinggil sa nabanggit, sinumang hindi residenteng dayuhan na nagnanais pumasok sa Pilipinas para magtrabaho, at sinumang lokal o dayuhang employer na nagnanais tumanggap o kumuha ng isang hindi residenteng dayuhan bilang empleyado sa Pilipinas, ay kailangang kumuha muna ng employment permit mula sa Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Kaugnay sa nabanggit, ibinahagi ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Mcburnie v. Ganzon (G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 G R. Nos. 186984-85, 17 October 2013) sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes, ang maaaring maging epekto ng kawalan ng kaukulang employment permit ng isang hindi residenteng dayuhan na aniya ay nagtatrabaho sa ating bansa:

“Considering that McBurnie, an Australian, alleged illegal dismissal and sought to claim under our labor laws, it was necessary for him to establish, first and foremost, that he was qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment within our jurisdiction. xxx we held that a foreign national’s failure to seek an employment permit prior to employment poses a serious problem in seeking relief from the Court. xxx

The law and the rules are consistent in stating that the employment permit must be acquired prior to employment. The Labor Code states: "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." xxx cannot come to this Court with unclean hands. To grant xxx’s prayer is to sanction the violation of the Philippine labor laws requiring aliens to secure work permits before their employment. We hold that the status quo must prevail in the present case and we leave the parties where they are. This ruling, however, does not bar Galera from seeking relief from other jurisdictions. Clearly, this circumstance on the failure of McBurnie to obtain an employment permit, by itself, necessitates the dismissal of his labor complaint. xxx 

Second, McBurnie failed to present any employment permit which would have authorized him to obtain employment in the Philippines. This circumstance negates McBurnie’s claim that he had been performing work for the respondents by virtue of an employer-employee relationship. The absence of the employment permit instead bolsters the claim that the supposed employment of McBurnie was merely simulated, or did not ensue due to the non-fulfillment of the conditions that were set forth in the letter of May 11, 1999.

Third, besides the employment agreement, McBurnie failed to present other competent evidence to prove his claim of an employer-employee relationship. Given the parties’ conflicting claims on their true intention in executing the agreement, it was necessary to resort to the established criteria for the determination of an employer-employee relationship, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. The rule of thumb remains: the onus probandi falls on the claimant to establish or substantiate the claim by the requisite quantum of evidence.” 

Samakatuwid, nananatiling pasanin ng isang claimant, o ng dayuhan sa iyong katanungan, na patunayan na siya ay isang empleyado ng inirereklamong employer kung nais niyang magsampa ng reklamo sa paggawa. Bukod pa rito, sang-ayon sa nabanggit na desisyon ng Korte Suprema, ang isang dayuhan ay maaaring hindi makapagsampa ng reklamong paggawa kung wala siyang nakuhang employment permit. Aniya, ang pagbibigay-daan sa hinihiling ng isang dayuhan na walang kaukulang permit ay katumbas ng pagpapahintulot sa paglabag sa mga batas paggawa ng Pilipinas na nag-aatas sa mga dayuhan na kumuha muna ng work permit bago sila makapagtrabaho.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.