MANILA HOTEL CORP. v. NLRC, GR No.
120077, 2000-10-13
Facts:
Marcelo Santos (hereinafter referred to as "Santos") was an overseas
worker employed as a printer at the Mazoon Printing Press, Sultanate of
Oman.
he was directly hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing, People's Republic... of
China and later terminated due to retrenchment.
Petitioners are the Manila Hotel Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"MHC") and the Manila Hotel International Company, Limited (hereinafter
referred to as "MHICL").
When the case was filed in 1990, MHC was still a government-owned and
controlled corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines.
MHICL is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
Hong Kong.[7] MHC is an "incorporator" of MHICL, owning 50% of its
capital stock.
By virtue of a "management agreement"[9] with the Palace Hotel (Wang
Fu Company Limited), MHICL[10] trained the personnel and staff of the
Palace Hotel at Beijing, China.
During his employment with the Mazoon Printing Press in the Sultanate of
Oman, respondent Santos received a letter dated May 2, 1988 from Mr.
Gerhard R. Shmidt, General Manager, Palace Hotel, Beijing, China. Mr.
Schmidt informed respondent Santos that he was recommended by one
Nestor Buenio, a friend of his.
Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the same position as printer, but
with a higher monthly salary and increased benefits.
On May 8, 1988, respondent Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt and signified his
acceptance of the offer.
Palace Hotel Manager, Mr. Hans J. Henk mailed a ready to sign
employment contract to respondent Santos. Mr. Henk advised respondent
Santos that if the contract was acceptable, to return the same to Mr.
Henk in Manila, together with his passport and two... additional pictures
for his visa to China.
Santos resigned from the Mazoon Printing Press, effective June 30, 1988,
under the pretext that he was needed at home to help with the family's
piggery and poultry business.
Santos was deemed resigned from the Mazoon Printing Press.
Santos arrived in Manila.
On November 5, 1988, respondent Santos left for Beijing, China. He
started to work at the Palace Hotel.
Santos signed an amended "employment agreement" with the Palace
Hotel, effective November 5, 1988. In the contract, Mr. Shmidt
represented the Palace Hotel. The Vice President (Operations and
Development) of petitioner MHICL Miguel D. Cergueda signed the...
employment agreement under the word "noted".
Santos was in the Philippines on vacation leave. He returned to China and
reassumed his post on July 17, 1989.
Mr. Shmidt's Executive Secretary, a certain Joanna suggested in a
handwritten note that respondent Santos be given one (1) month notice of
his release from employment.
Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt
that his employment at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated
due to business reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China.
Palace Hotel terminated the employment of respondent Santos and paid
all benefits due him, including his plane fare back to the Philippines.
Santos, through his lawyer, Atty. Ednave wrote Mr. Shmidt, demanding full
compensation pursuant to the employment agreement.
Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Arbitration Branch,
National Capital Region, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The complaint named MHC, MHICL, the Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt as
respondents.
The Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt were not served with summons and
neither participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
Labor Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana, decided the case against petitioners...
petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the POEA, not the NLRC
had jurisdiction over the case.
NLRC promulgated a resolution, stating:[20]
"WHEREFORE, let the appealed Decision be, as it is hereby, declared null
and void for want of jurisdiction. Complainant is hereby enjoined to file
his complaint with the POEA.
Santos moved for reconsideration of the afore-quoted resolution. He
argued that the case was not cognizable by the POEA as he was not an
"overseas contract worker."
NLRC granted the motion and reversed itself. The NLRC directed Labor
Arbiter Emerson Tumanon to hear the case on the question of whether
private respondent was retrenched or dismissed.
NLRC ruled in favor of private respondent
Issues:
I. Forum Non-Conveniens
Ruling:
The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign
jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The only link
that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a
Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign... corporations.
Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
The employment contract.-- Respondent Santos was hired directly by the
Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the
Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was
hired without the intervention of the POEA or any... authorized
recruitment agency of the government.
Not Convenient.-- We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum
given that all the incidents of the case - from the time of recruitment, to
employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The
inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper... defendants,
the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither
are they "doing business in the Philippines." Likewise, the main
witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the Philippines.
No power to determine applicable law.-- Neither can an intelligent
decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as
such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the
principle of lex loci contractus (the law of... the place where the contract
was made).
The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines.
Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by writing a letter while he
was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in
the People's Republic of China.
No power to determine the facts.-- Neither can the NLRC determine the
facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of
took place in Beijing, People's Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a
position to determine whether the
Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely affected operations of the
Palace Hotel as to justify respondent Santos' retrenchment.
Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision.-- Even assuming
that a proper decision could be reached by the NLRC, such would not
have any binding effect against the employer, the Palace Hotel. The
Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the... laws of China and
was not even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not
acquired.
If Santos were an "overseas contract worker", a
Philippine forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him.
[39] He is not an "overseas contract worker" a fact which he admits with
conviction.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition for certiorari and
ANNULS the orders and resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission dated May 31, 1993, December 15, 1994 and March 30, 1995
in NLRC NCR CA No. 002101-91 (NLRC NCR Case No.
00-02-01058-90).
Principles:
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that
the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort
to; (2) that the Philippine court is... in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has
or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
Reference: http://lawyerly.ph/digest/c9095?user=1023
