By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA, REB, LL.M.
Two jobs, two bills
The case of Jose Edwin G. Esico against Alphaland is a reminder that employment contracts, like aircraft, must be handled with care before takeoff. Esico was first brought in as a risk and security officer, then also engaged as a pilot. He trained on aircraft at Alphaland’s expense, performed flying duties, and later questioned whether he was being properly paid for the two roles he believed he was doing. When he resigned before the agreed five-year service period, the dispute turned into a legal tug-of-war over unpaid salaries on one side and training expenses on the other.
In plain terms, Esico was not constructively dismissed, but he was also not fully paid for the work the Court found he had actually rendered. The Court recognized that he served under two concurrent designations: as risk and security management officer and as pilot. Because the employment papers were vague and were prepared under Alphaland’s group arrangement, the ambiguity was read against the companies. The result was simple enough for workers to appreciate: if an employer benefits from two jobs, it cannot pretend there was only one paycheck due.
The main legal twist was about jurisdiction. In its earlier decision, the Court had said the labor tribunals had no authority over Alphaland’s claim for reimbursement of training expenses because it was supposedly a contractual claim better left to regular courts. On reconsideration, the Court changed that part. It held that when an employer’s money claim is directly tied to an employee’s resignation or termination of employment, the labor arbiter and the NLRC may hear it.
That ruling makes practical sense. Alphaland’s claim did not arise from some unrelated private deal, like a personal loan or a business venture outside work. It arose because Esico allegedly left before finishing the service period that was the company’s consideration for paying his Eurocopter and Cessna training. Had he not resigned early, there would have been no reimbursement claim. In the Court’s words and logic, the claim was closely connected to the employer-employee relationship.
The result was a balanced but expensive landing for both parties. Alphaland had to pay Esico PHP3,047,500.00 in unpaid salaries because he was entitled to compensation for both jobs: PHP2,242,500.00 for his work as pilot from April 19, 2010 to November 30, 2011, and PHP805,000.00 for his work as risk and security management officer from December 1, 2011 to July 3, 2012. It also had to pay attorney’s fees of ten percent. But Esico also had to pay Alphaland PHP977,720.00 for the unserved portion of the aircraft training expenses. Both monetary awards would earn interest at six percent per year from finality of the resolution until full payment.
For employees and employers, the lesson is simple: read the contract before signing, and honor the bargain after signing. A company cannot hide behind confusing papers to avoid paying salaries. But an employee who accepts costly training in exchange for a promised service period cannot simply walk away from that promise without consequence. In this case, the Supreme Court kept the ruling on the main issue intact, but made clear that labor tribunals may settle both sides of the employment bill in one forum. (Esico v. Alphaland Corporation and Alphaland Development, Inc., G.R. No. 216716, April 7, 2026)