First Philippine

International
Bank vs CA
252 SCRA 259 Conflict of Laws
Private International Law Origin of
Forum Non Conveniens
Producers Bank (now called First
Philippine International Bank), which has
been under conservatorship since 1984,
is the owner of 6 parcels of land. The
Bank had an agreement with Demetrio
Demetria and Jose Janolo for the two to
purchase the parcels of land for a
purchase price of P5.5 million pesos.
The said agreement was made by
Demetria and Janolo with the Banks
manager, Mercurio
Rivera.
Later
however, the Bank, through its
conservator,
Leonida
Encarnacion,
sought the repudiation of the agreement
as it alleged that Rivera was not
authorized to enter into such an
agreement, hence there was no valid
contract of sale. Subsequently, Demetria

against the Bank. There is identity of

parties even though the first case is in
the name of the bank as defendant, and
the second case is in the name of Henry
Co as plaintiff. There is still forum
shopping here because Henry Co
essentially represents the bank. Both
cases aim to have the bank escape
liability from the agreement it entered
into with Demetria et al.

Producers Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC [GR

100701, March 28, 2001]
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Posted by
Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Labor Law
An employer cannot be forced to distribute
bonuses which it can no longer afford to pay, a
bonus is an amount granted and paid to an
employee for his industry and loyalty which
contributed to the success of the employers
business and made possible the realization of
profile. It is an act of generosity and is a
management prerogative, given in addition to what
is ordinarily received by or strictly due the
recipient. Thus, it is not a demandable and
enforceable obligation, except when it is made part
of the wage, salary or compensation of the
employee.

The Supreme Court also discussed that

to combat forum shopping, which
originated as a concept in international
law, the principle of forum non
conveniens
was
developed.
The
doctrine of forum non conveniens
provides that a court, in conflicts of law
cases, may refuse impositions on its
jurisdiction where it is not the most
convenient or available forum and the
parties are not precluded from seeking
remedies elsewhere.

The conservator was justified in reducing the midyear and Christmas bonuses of petitioners
employees. Ultimately, it is to the employees
advantage that the conservatorship achieve its
purposes otherwise, the closure of the company
would result in the employees losing their jobs.

and Janolo sued Producers Bank. The

regional trial court ruled in favor of
Demetria et al. The Bank filed an appeal
with the Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, Henry Co, who holds 80%

shares of stocks with the said Bank, filed
a motion for intervention with the trial
court. The trial court denied the motion
since the trial has been concluded
already and the case is now pending
appeal. Subsequently, Co, assisted by
ACCRA law office, filed a separate civil
case against Carlos Ejercito as
successor-in-interest
(assignee)
of
Demetria and Janolo seeking to have
the purported contract of sale be
declared unenforceable against the
Bank. Ejercito et al argued that the
second
case
constitutes
forum
shopping.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is forum
shopping.
HELD: Yes. There is forum shopping
because there is identity of interest and
parties between the first case and the
second case. There is identity of interest
because both cases sought to have the
agreement, which involves the same
property, be declared unenforceable as

Page

SCL CASES

**Forum Shopping: occurs when a

party attempts to have his action tried in
a particular court or jurisdiction where
he feels he will receive the most
favorable judgment or verdict.

PD 851 requires all employees to pay their

employees a basic salary of not more than P1, 000
at 13th monthly pay. However, employees already
paying their employees a 13th month pay are not
covered by the law. The term equivalent shall be
constructed to include Christmas bonus, mid year
bonus, cash bonuses and other payments
amounting to not less than 1 /12 of the basic
salary. The intention was to grant relief to those not
actually paid a bonus, by whatever name called.
Thus, petitioner is justified in crediting the mid year
bonus and Christmas bones as part of the 13th
month pay.
The divisor used by petitioner in arriving at the
employees daily rate for the purpose of computing
salary related benefits is 314 days. This finding was
not disputed by the NLRC. However, the divisor
was for the sole purpose of increasing the
employees overtime pay and was not meant to
replace the use of 314 as the divisor in the
computation of the daily rate for salary related
benefits.