Cadalin v. POEA Administrator G.R. No.

L-104776

Facts: Cadalin et al. are Filipino workers recruited by Asia Intl Builders Co. (AIBC), a domestic recruitment corporation, for employment in Bahrain to work for Brown & Root Intl Inc. (BRII) which is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Texas. Plaintiff instituted a class suit with the POEA for money claims arising from the unexpired portion of their employment contract which was prematurely terminated. They worked in Bahrain for BRII and they filed the suit after 1 yr. from the termination of their employment contract. As provided by Art. 156 of the Amiri Decree aka as the Labor Law of the Private Sector of Bahrain: a claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of 1 year from the date of the expiry of the contract, it appears that their suit has prescribed. Plaintiff contends that the prescription period should be 10 years as provided by Art. 1144 of the Civil Code as their claim arise from a violation of a contract. The POEA Administrator holds that the 10 year period of prescription should be applied but the NLRC provides a different view asserting that Art 291 of the Labor Code of the Phil. with a 3 years prescription period should be applied. The Solicitor General expressed his personal point of view that the 1 yr period provided by the Amiri Decree should be applied.

Issue: Whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law?

Held: As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law. A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.

However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a borrowing statute. Said statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A borrowing statute directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of borrowing statutes, one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine Islands. In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot be enforced ex propio vigore insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claims obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor. The court ruled that the prescription period applicable to the case should be Art 291 of the Labor Code of the Phil. with a 3 years prescription period since the claim arose from labor employment.

United Airlines Inc. v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 124110

Facts: Aniceto Fontanilla bought from United Airlines, through the Philippine Travel Bureau in Manila, three Visit the U.S.A. tickets from himself, his wife and his minor son, Mychal, to visit the cities of Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles. All All flights had been confirmed previously by United Airlines. Having used the first coupon to DC and while at the Washington Dulles Airport, Aniceto changed their itinerary, paid the penalty for rewriting their tickets and was issued tickets with corresponding boarding passes with the words: Check -in-required. They were then set to leave but were denied boarding because the flight was overbooked. The CA ruled that private respondents failure to comply with the check-in requirement will not defeat his claim as the denied boarding rules were not complied with applying the laws of the USA, relying on the Code of Federal Regulation Part on Oversales of the USA.

Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct in applying the laws of USA? Held: No. According to the doctrine of lex loci contractus, the law of the place where a contract is made or entered into governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and interpretation shall govern. This has been said to be the rule even though the place where the contract was made is different from the place where it is to be performed. Hence, the court should apply the law of the place where the airline ticket was issued, where the passengers are residents and nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by the defendant airline. Therefore, although, the contract of carriage was to be performed in the United States, the tickets were purchased through petitioners agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were "rewritten" in D.C., however, such fact did not change the nature of the original contract of carriage entered into by the parties in Manila.