Scribd
Upload
30 views9 pages

CONFLICT MANILA HOTEL v. NLRC GR120077

Uploaded by

Dong Yen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views9 pages

CONFLICT MANILA HOTEL v. NLRC GR120077

Uploaded by

Dong Yen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

THE MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION &

MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD.


VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
ARBITER CEFERINA J. DIOSANA &
MARCELO G. SANTOS
G.R. NO. 120077, OCTOBER 13, 2000
PARDO, J.P., J.
FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for


certiorari and ANNULS the orders and
resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission in NLRC NCR. No costs.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Marcelo Santos, overseas contract worker in Oman. Manila
Hotel Corporation (MHC)- is an “incorporator” of MHICL, owning
50% of its capital stock. Manila Hotel International Company,
Limited (MHIC) trained the personnel and staff of the Palace Hotel
at Beijing, China.
Santos was hired by Palace Hotel in a 2-year contract, through
recommendation of his friend Buenio, thus he resigned in his
current job in Oman. He started to work at the Palace Hotel.
Subsequently, Santos signed an amended “employment
agreement” with the Palace Hotel. Shmidt represented the Palace
Hotel. The VP of MHICL Miguel D. Cergueda also signed the
employment agreement under the word “noted”.
Later, Santos was in the Philippines on vacation leave. Days later when he
returned to China and reassumed his post Mr. Shmidt’s Executive Secretary
suggested in a handwritten note that Santos be given one (1) month notice of
his release from employment. Palace Hotel informed Santos by letter signed by
Mr. Shmidt that his employment at Palace Hotel would be terminated due to
business reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China. Palace
Hotel paid all benefits due him, including his plane fare back to the Philippines.
Santos wrote Mr. Shmidt, demanding full compensation pursuant to the
employment agreement. Shmidt declined.
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. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the POEA, not the
NLRC had jurisdiction over the case. Santos argued that the case was not
cognizable by the POEA as he was not an “overseas contract worker.” On
December 15, 1994, the NLRC ruled in favor of Santos.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the NLRC has the
jurisdiction over the case of Santos?
HELD:
NO. Rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may
assume jurisdiction over the case if:
(1) Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort
to;
(2) Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to
the law and the facts; and
(3) Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its
decisions
The conditions are unavailing and not convenient because given that all
the incidents of the case occurred outside the Philippines, the defendants,
the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines and the
main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the
Philippines.
The NLRC has no power to determine applicable law because employment
contract was perfected in foreign soil and due to the application of the principle of
lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made). The NLRC
had no power to determine the facts because all acts complained of took place in
Beijing, People’s Republic of China, therefore it was not in position to determine
whether the Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely affected operations of the
Palace Hotel to justify respondent Santos’ retrenchment.
On principle of effectiveness, NLRC had 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. Jurisdiction over
person of Palace Hotel was not acquired, if Santos were an “overseas contract
worker”, a Philippine forum in POEA would protect him. He is not an “overseas
contract worker”.
MHC Not Liable because it is an incorporator of MHICL and owns
fifty percent (50%) of its capital stock. However, this is not enough
to pierce the veil of corporate fiction between MHICL and MHC.
MHICL also not Liable because VP Cergueda signed the
employment contract as a mere witness. Also, there was no existing
employer-employee relationship between Santos and MHICL. Finally,
it was the Palace Hotel, through Mr. Schmidt and not MHICL that
terminated respondent Santos’ services.
AGREE OR DISAGREE:
I agree to the decision of SC because the NLRC had no power to
determine the facts because all acts complained of took place in other country.
In this case, no any acts was happened in the Philippines against Santos,
therefore it is properly decided that NLRC had The
no jurisdiction.
jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the
Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-
employee relationship which can be resolved by reference to the
Labor Code, or other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining
agreements.

You might also like