Pacific Consultants vs Schonfield (Labor Law)

Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. vs Schonfield

GR No. 166920 

February 19, 2007

Facts:

Respondent is a Canadian Citizen and was a resident of British Columbia, Canada. He had been a consultant in the field of environmental engineering. The petitioner was engaged in the business of providing specialty and technical services. Eventually, Schonfield was hired as a Sector Manager for water and sanitation with a condition that any questions regarding the conditions of employment between the employee and the company is to be settled by the Court of Arbitration in London. Unfortunately, respondent was terminated for the reason that the company was not successful in the water and sanitation business. The respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner before the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner contended that the venue was improperly laid under the conditions on employment where the parties had agreed that any employment related dispute be brought before the London Court of Arbitration. 

Issue:

WON the contention of the petitioner is valid? 

Held: 

No. The rule on stipulations regarding the venue are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulation in a contract do not supersede the general rule set forth in rule 4 of the rules of court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.