One Foreign Employee, Two Group Companies, Only One AEP: How to Regularise After an Inspection

Inspectors found only one AEP: what to do on the spot and that same day

Bottom line: explain truthfully what the foreign national does at each company, who pays him and who he signed with, do not change your story mid-inspection, and do not sign statements you cannot read. The same day, pull together both companies' appointment documents and his permits and get a lawyer and adviser to look at whether and how to regularise.

The typical pattern: a foreign executive's work permit and 9G sit with Company A in a group, but he is also a director and general manager of Company B, signing, chairing meetings and managing staff there. When DOLE or the Bureau of Immigration inspects Company B, they find him working there with permits only under Company A, and ask for an explanation.

On the day:

• Cooperate and answer truthfully. State his title at Company B, what he actually does and how often he is there. Do not recast him as 'just a shareholder who visits for meetings' if that is not true; a story that later contradicts the documents makes things far worse.
• Get everything in writing. Keep copies or photos of any notice, compliance order or list of documents requested, and note the date and the officers involved.
• Do not sign what you do not understand. Ask for interpretation, or say the company's lawyer will review before signing.
• Brief both companies the same day. Align on telling the truth, not on a shared script.

General inspection conduct is covered in DOLE labour inspections and when immigration officers visit. This guide only covers what to fix after a 'one person, two companies, one permit' finding.

Does the second company need its own permit? The facts that decide it

The key question is whether he is only a shareholder or voting director at the second company, or whether he actually manages, is paid, signs and leads people there. The first may, under certain conditions, not require a separate work permit; the second is usually treated as working for that company and has to be handled accordingly. The final call belongs to DOLE and the Bureau of Immigration under their current rules.

Lay these facts out clearly:

• Role: is he a director, president, general manager or treasurer at Company B, or simply a shareholder? Does the role involve day-to-day execution?
• Pay: does Company B pay him salary, allowances or director's fees? Is his pay issued by Company A and recharged within the group, or paid directly by Company B?
• Actual work: does he sign contracts, approve payments, manage employees or represent Company B externally? How often does he work there?
• Employment link: is there an employment contract or appointment letter with Company B?

The general rule on whether foreign directors need an AEP is in do foreign directors need an AEP; who should be the 9G petitioner within a group, and why a move to an affiliate counts as a change of employer, is in which company files the 9G. Here we assume the issue has already been found and focus on the fix.

One honest point: if he works full time at Company B while his permit sits with Company A, the risk profile is close to 9G permit 'parking'. Do not expect an explanation to carry it; move to a compliant arrangement quickly.

Three ways to regularise: an added permit, a changed role, or a moved permit

There is no single answer. Pick the route that matches his real role and the group's intentions, and where the documents will line up. The common options:

• Obtain the appropriate permit for Company B. If he genuinely holds a role at Company B that needs one and the group wants to keep it that way, Company B applies as required. Whether two permits can be held, what is needed and how it interacts with Company A's permit must be confirmed with DOLE and the Bureau of Immigration beforehand; do not assume.
• Change his role at Company B. If his executive work there can be withdrawn so that he keeps only a status that does not need a separate permit, change the role and the actual work for real, and document it with a board resolution and appointment changes. Changing the paperwork while he keeps doing the same job will be caught at the next inspection.
• Move the permit to the company that really employs him. If he mainly works for Company B and Company A's permit no longer reflects reality, treat it as a change of employer: Company B applies afresh and Company A cancels as required, so neither side is out of line.

Whatever you choose, two lines hold: the choice must match the facts, and until the new arrangement is in place he should not keep working in a role he has no permit for. If the inspection produced a compliance order, its deadline and document list govern.

If a permit has already been revoked after a complaint or inspection, see when DOLE revokes an AEP.

Writing to DOLE and immigration: what to say and what to attach

The principle: clear facts, complete documents, an honest acknowledgment of what needs fixing, and a concrete plan, not a letter that denies everything.

A good explanation usually covers:

• how he is deployed across the group: which company mainly employs him, what he does at the other, and why;
• his role, source of pay, actual duties and time split at each company;
• how the company will regularise (added permit, changed role or moved permit) and on what timeline;
• interim measures until then, such as pausing his executive work at Company B.

Typical supporting documents include both companies' registration papers, lists of directors and officers, board resolutions, his appointment letters or employment contracts, payroll and remuneration records, and an internal note on how his duties are divided. Which need notarisation or authentication and where they go depends on the notice and the counter's current requirements.

Avoid three mistakes: contradicting what was said on the day; describing recharged pay as 'no remuneration'; and promising a deadline you cannot meet. Where you are unsure, write 'we will supplement by [date]' rather than committing early. Have a lawyer review the letter before filing, because it will anchor everything that follows.

It also helps to attach a one-page timeline: when he joined each company, when each title was given, when his permit was issued and under which petitioner, and when the inspection took place. A reviewer who can see the sequence at a glance is more likely to read the arrangement as an oversight being corrected than as something hidden. Keep the tone factual, avoid blaming former staff or advisers, and make sure the person signing the letter has the authority to commit the company to the plan it describes.

While you are at it, check everyone else in the group

One finding usually signals a wider gap. Use this fix to check every foreign national in the group: whose permit they hold and where they really work. It is far cheaper than repairing them one by one after the next inspection.

The four arrangements that cause most trouble:

• Multiple roles: a foreign executive holding executive posts in two or three affiliates with a permit in only one.
• Deployment mismatch: the permit names Company A while the person is posted long term to Company B or a client site. See when the AEP worksite differs from reality.
• Pay source differs from the petitioner: Company B pays while Company A petitions, or an overseas parent pays while the Philippine company is a name only.
• Accounts and files scattered: several companies run their DOLE and immigration portals through one person and one email, so one staff change cuts everyone off. See the companion guide when the online account is with an ex-HR officer.

Build one group register of foreign nationals: name, petitioning company, company actually worked for, role, paying entity, permit expiry and owner. Every row where petitioner and actual employer differ goes on the fix list, handled in order of risk.

When the register is done, assign each mismatched row an owner and a target date, and review progress monthly until the list is clear. Prioritise anyone whose permit expires soon, anyone who signs contracts or manages staff in a company where they hold no permit, and anyone already named in an inspection notice. Keep the register with the HR or compliance lead, not with one individual, and update it whenever someone is appointed, transferred or leaves, so the next inspection finds a group whose paperwork matches how people actually work.

How Yixing can help

The hard part is not the forms; it is getting the facts and the group arrangement straight, then choosing a fix that matches the facts and the documents. Yixing can help you:

• map the person's roles, pay and actual work across each group company and spot where they do not match the permit;
• compare the three routes, added permit, changed role or moved permit, and the documents each needs;
• prepare the explanation and document list for DOLE and the Bureau of Immigration, and support you at the counter;
• run a group-wide permit review for all foreign staff and set priorities.

Our wider work-permit and foreign-staff compliance service is at Visa & HR services. Decisions rest with the agencies; Yixing does not promise outcomes and will not recommend any arrangement designed to avoid inspection. Where a 'name-only' or 'paperwork-only' plan does not match reality, we will tell you the risk plainly and recommend a compliant route.

Yixing is a private consultancy with no affiliation to any government office. Credentials: SEC registration CS202009551; Bureau of Immigration accreditation BI Accreditation No. CA-202624381-1 (valid to 30 June 2027); DOLE accreditation; PRA accreditation.

For your specific situation, consult a licensed lawyer; this article is not legal advice.

In practice, most groups we see did not set out to break rules; the arrangement grew as the business added entities and nobody went back to check the permits. The useful mindset is to treat the inspection as a prompt to tidy up rather than a fight to win. A clear, honest fix filed early usually leaves the company in a far better position than a defensive response, and it protects the employee too, because his own status depends on the company's paperwork being right.