The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that labor tribunals had jurisdiction over an illegal dismissal case filed by a US citizen against a US airline company with Philippine operations. While the employment contract referred to US law and was negotiated in the US, this did not preclude Philippine jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the company was also established as it was licensed to do business in the Philippines and participated in the legal proceedings. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court can assume jurisdiction over conflicts of law cases as long as the parties can conveniently access the court, the court can intelligently decide the law and facts, and enforce its decision - all of which applied in this case.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that labor tribunals had jurisdiction over an illegal dismissal case filed by a US citizen against a US airline company with Philippine operations. While the employment contract referred to US law and was negotiated in the US, this did not preclude Philippine jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the company was also established as it was licensed to do business in the Philippines and participated in the legal proceedings. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court can assume jurisdiction over conflicts of law cases as long as the parties can conveniently access the court, the court can intelligently decide the law and facts, and enforce its decision - all of which applied in this case.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that labor tribunals had jurisdiction over an illegal dismissal case filed by a US citizen against a US airline company with Philippine operations. While the employment contract referred to US law and was negotiated in the US, this did not preclude Philippine jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the company was also established as it was licensed to do business in the Philippines and participated in the legal proceedings. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court can assume jurisdiction over conflicts of law cases as long as the parties can conveniently access the court, the court can intelligently decide the law and facts, and enforce its decision - all of which applied in this case.
] CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA, INC., petitioner, vs. JOSEPH BASSO, respondent.
TOPIC: Forum Non Conveniens – An inconvenient forum
DOCTRINE: Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction if it chooses to do so, provided, that the following requisites are met: (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. 46 All these requisites are present here. FACTS: Petitioner Continental Micronesia is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of and domiciled in the United States of America. It is licensed to do business in the Philippines. Respondent, a US citizen residing in the Philippines, accepted an offer to be a General Manager position by Mr. Braden, Managing Director- Asia of Continental Airlines. On November 7, 1992, CMI took over the Philippine operations of Continental, with respondent retaining his position as General Manager. Thereafter, respondent received a letter from Mr. Schulz, who was then CMI’s Vice President of Marketing and Sales, informing him that he has agreed to work in CMI as a consultant on an “as needed basis.” Respondent wrote a counter-proposal that was rejected by CMI. Respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner corporation. Alleging the presence of foreign elements, CMI filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of CMI and the subject matter of the controversy. The Labor Arbiter agreed with CMI that the employment contract was executed in the US “since the letter-offer was under the Texas letterhead and the acceptance of Complainant was returned there.” Thus, applying the doctrine of lex loci celebrationis, US laws apply. Also, applying lex loci contractus, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the parties did not intend to apply Philippine laws. The NLRC ruled that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the case when CMI voluntarily submitted to his office’s jurisdiction by presenting evidence, advancing arguments in support of the legality of its acts, and praying for reliefs on the merits of the case. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over the parties. ISSUE: Whether labor tribunals have jurisdiction over the case. RULING: Yes. The Court ruled that the labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the case. The employment contract of Basso was replete with references to US laws, and that it originated from and was returned to the US, do not automatically preclude our labor tribunals from exercising jurisdiction to hear and try this case. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of CMI was acquired through the coercive process of service of summons. CMI never denied that it was served with summons. CMI has, in fact, voluntarily appeared and participated in the proceedings before the courts. Though a foreign corporation, CMI is licensed to do business in the Philippines and has a local business address here. The purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing business in the country be licensed to do so, is to subject the foreign corporations to the jurisdiction of our courts. Where the facts establish the existence of foreign elements, the case presents a conflicts-of-laws issue. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction if it chooses to do so, provided, that the following requisites are met: (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. All these requisites are present here.