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.

Sim vs NLRC (Labor Law)

Sim vs NLRC

GR No. 157376, 

October 2, 2007

 Facts:

Corazon Sim (petitioner) filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, alleging that she was initially employed by Equitable PCI-Bank (respondent) in 1990 as Italian Remittance Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt Representative Office. Eventually, she was promoted to Manager position, until September 1999, when she received a letter from Remegio David, the Senior Officer, European Head of PCI Bank, and Managing Director of PCIB- Europe, informing her that she was being dismissed due to loss of trust and confidence based on alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit stressing that the labor relations system in the Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of merit.

 Issue:

WON the Labor Arbiter has extra-territorial jurisdiction.

 Ruling:

Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission x x x Moreover, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,18 provides:

SECTION 10. Money Claims.  Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within 90 calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 804219 provides that the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, subject to the rules and procedures of the NLRC. 

Under these provisions, it is clear that labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers.

PNB vs Cabansag (Labor Law)

PNB vs Cabansag 

GR No. 157010 

June 21, 2005

Facts:

Florence Cabansag arrived in Singapore as a tourist. She applied for employment with the Singapore Branch of the PNB, organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. The Branch Office had two types of employees: a) expatriates or the regular employees, hired in Manila and assigned abroad and b) locally (direct) hired. VicePresident of the PNB offered her a temporary appointment as Credit Officer with several conditions which Florence accepted. The Philippine Embassy in Singapore processed the employment contract of Florence and was issued by the POEA an Overseas Employment Certificate certifying she was a bona fide contract worker for Singapore. After 3 months, Florence was asked to resign as a cost-cutting measure of the Bank. She was warned that unless she submitted her letter of resignation, her employment record will be blemished with the notation "DISMISSED". The LA rendered judgment in favor of the complainant finding the Bank guilty of illegal dismissal and devoid of due process. NLRC and CA affirmed this decision and stated that even though respondent secured an employment pass from the Singapore Ministry of Employment, she did not waive Philippine labor laws, or the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter or the NLRC over her complaint for illegal dismissal. 

Issue:

Do the LA and NLRC has jurisdiction over a tourist employee hired in a foreign country but worked for PNB Singapore branch? 

Ruling: 

Yes. Based on the provisions of Art. 217 of the LC, and Sec.10 of RA 8042, labor arbiters clearly have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from EE, including termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers. Securing the employment pass from the Singaporean Ministry of Manpower does not automatically mean that the non-citizen is thereby bound by local laws only. It does not at all imply a waiver of one's national laws on labor. Noteworthy is the fact that respondent likewise applied for and secured an Overseas Employment Certificate from the POEA through the Phil. Embassy in Singapore. Under our law, this document authorized her working status in a foreign country and entitled her to all benefits and processes under our statutes.