Saudia Airlines v. Rebesencio
Summons were validly served on Saudia and jurisdiction over
Petitioner is a foreign corporation established and existing under the laws of
Saudi Arabia. It has a Philippine office in Makati City.
Respondents, in their complaint, claimed that they were recruited and hired
by Saudia as Temporary Flight Attendants with POEA accreditation. After
undergoing trainings and seminars as required for deployment, they became
permanent. They entered as cabin attendants and continued service until
2006.
Respondents alleged that termination was on the ground that they were
pregnant. Initially, Saudia had given its approval for their maternity leave but
later informed them that it was disapproved anchored in its Unified
Employment Contract For Female Cabin Attendants and were required to
filed their resignation letters and even if they don’t file resignation letters, that
they will be terminated all the same, with a threat of losing benefits.
Instead of filing resignation letters, they filed separate appeal letters that
were all rejected.
Despite rejections, respondents received calls that their leaves were
approved. On the same day, Saudia was quick to renege its approval.
Because of the fear of losing the benefits, respondents filed their proper
resignation letters.
Thus, a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
ISSUE:
(1) W/N the LA and the NLRC may exercise jurisdiction over Saudi
Arabian Airlines and apply Phil law in adjudicating the present
dispute
(2) w/n the respondents voluntarily resigned or were illegally
terminated
HELD:
(1) Yes.
it was validly acquired. “Saudia Manila” was never a party to the
contracts; it was “Saudia Jeddah” that provided the funds to pay the
respondent’s salaries and benefits; it was “Saudia Jeddah” that
respondents the respondents filed their resignations.
(2) They were illegally dismissed.
Saudia asserts that stipulations set in the Cabin Attendant contracts require
the application of the laws of Saudi Arabia. It insists that the need to comply
with these stipulations calls into operation the doctrine of forum non
conveniens and, in turn, makes it necessary for Philippine tribunals to refrain
from exercising jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens, like the rules of forum
shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata, is a means of addressing the
problem of parallel litigation. While the rules of forum shopping, litis
pendentia, and res judicata are designed to address the problem of parallel
litigation within a single jurisdiction, forum non conveniens is a means
devised to address parallel litigation arising in multiple jurisdictions. On the
matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we state the rule, thus: Forum non
conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it
must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise, it
shall be deemed waived. It further stated: Forum non conveniens finds no
application and does not operate to divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction
and to require the application of foreign law. Saudia invokes forum non
conveniens to supposedly effectuate the stipulations of the Cabin Attendant
contracts that require the application of the laws of Saudi Arabia. xxx So
informed and animated, we emphasize the glaringly discriminatory nature of
Saudia’s policy. As argued by respondents, Saudia’s policy entails the
termination of employment of flight attendants who become pregnant. At the
risk of stating the obvious, pregnancy is an occurrence that pertains
specifically to women. Saudia’s policy excludes from and restricts
employment on the basis of no other consideration but sex. We do not lose
sight of the reality that pregnancy does present physical limitations that may
render difficult the performance of functions associated with being a flight
attendant. Nevertheless, it would be the height of iniquity to view pregnancy
as a disability so permanent and immutable that it must entail the termination
of one’s employment. It is clear to us that any individual, regardless of
gender, may be subject to exigencies that limit the performance of functions.
However, we fail to appreciate how pregnancy could be such an impairing
occurrence that it leaves no other recourse but the complete termination of
the means through which a woman earns a living. Oddly enough, the
petitioner Saudia themselves stated that the Saudi law does not allow the
termination of employment of women who take maternity leaves; Consistent
with lex loci intentionis, to the extent that it is proper and practicable (i.e., “to
make an intelligent decision”), Philippine tribunals may apply the foreign law
selected by the parties. In fact, (albeit without meaning to make a
pronouncement on the accuracy and reliability of respondents’ citation) in
this case, respondents themselves have made averments as to the laws of
Saudi Arabia. In their Comment, respondents write: Under the Labor Laws
of Saudi Arabia and the Philippines[,] it is illegal and unlawful to terminate
the employment of any woman by virtue of pregnancy. The law in Saudi
Arabia is even more harsh and strict [sic] in that no employer can terminate
the employment of a female worker or give her a warning of the same while
on Maternity Leave, the specific provision of Saudi Labor Laws on the matter
is hereto quoted as follows: “An employer may not terminate the employment
of a female worker or give her a warning of the same while on maternity
leave.” (Article 155, Labor Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Royal
Decree No. M/51.)
In their answer, petitioners maintained that Avestruz was dismissed for a just
and valid cause for not complying to what was incumbent upon him and that
he is not entitled to recover his salary.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Avestruz’s complaint for lack of merit. He
agrees that he failed to obey the directives of his superior, which was
tantamount to insubordination.
The NLRC sustained the validity of Avestruz’s dismissal but found that
petitioners failed to observe the procedures laid down in Sec. 17 of the
POEA-SEC which states:
SECTION 17. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES.
The Master shall comply with the following disciplinary procedures against
an erring seafarer:

MAERSK V. AVESTRUZ
G.R. No. 2017010, February 18, 2015 A. The Master shall furnish the seafarer with a written
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. notice containing the following:
FACTS:
1. Grounds for the charges as listed in Section 33 of this
Contract or analogous act constituting the same.
On April 28, 2011, petitioner, on behalf of its foreign principal, A.P. Moller,
hired Avestruz as Chief Cook on board M/V Nedlloyd Drake for a period of 6
mos., with a salary of $700. 2. Date, time and place for a formal investigation of the
charges against the seafarer concerned.
On June 22, Captain Woodward noticed that the cover of the garbage bin in
the kitchen was oily. As it was part of Avestruz duty to maintain cleanliness,
Captain Wooward called the latter and demanded that he wipe the garbage
bin with his hands to feel it; Avestruz answered that if he is looking for dirt, B. The Master or his authorized representative shall conduct the
that he can find it because the ship is big, causing an argument to ensue investigation or hearing, giving the seafarer the opportunity to
between them explain or defend himself against the charges. These
procedures must be duly documented and entered into the
On the same day, Captain Woodward told Avestruz that he will be dismissed ship’s logbook.
and disembarked in India. He was thereafter disembarked in CMB, Sri
Lanka.
C. If after the investigation or hearing, the Master is convinced that
imposition of a penalty is justified, the Master shall issue a written
Avestruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Maersk, A.P. Moller
notice of penalty and the reasons for it to the seafarer, with
and demanded payment as his airfare was deducted from his wages.
copies furnished to the Philippine agent.
 D. Dismissal for just cause may be effected by the Master without
furnishing the seafarer with a notice of dismissal if there is a clear
and existing danger to the safety of the crew or the vessel. The
Master shall send a complete report to the manning agency
substantiated by witnesses, testimonies and any other documents
in support thereof. (Emphases supplied)
And also ordered the petitioners to severally pay Avestruz the amount of Php
300,000.
The Court of Appeals set aside the rulings of the NLRC and found that he
was indeed, illegally dismissed and that the charge of insubordination was
not supported by any ground. 1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have
been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and
(2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
discharge. The CA found that, contrary to the rulings of the labor tribunals,
there was no evidence on record to bolster petitioners’ claims that Avestruz
willfully failed to comply with his duties as Chief Cook and that he displayed
a perverse and wrongful attitude
ISSUE: W/N CA erred when it reversed and set aside the ruling of NLRC
HELD:
NO, The petition is devoid of merit. It is well settled that the burden of
proving that the termination of an employee was for a just cause lies with the
employer. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the dismissal will be
ruled unjustified and illegal. In the case at bar, the contents of Captain
Woodward’s e-mails are not sufficient to establish such alleged willfull
conduct. It is incumbent upon the employer to furnish more evidence to
support and defend themselves. Instead of giving Avestruz a written notice
of penalty and reasons for its imposition, Woodward only verbally informed
him that he was dismissed and immediately disembarked him. The
petitioners are liable to pay him his unfinished portion. (Sec 10, RA 8042, as
amended by RA 10022)
IPAMS V. DE VERA & ARRIOLA
G.R. No. 205703, March 7, 2016
Mendoza, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Industrial Personnel & Management Services, Inc. (IPAMS) is a
local payment agency duly organized and existing under out Philippine laws.
Co-petitioner SNC lavalin is the principal of IPAMS, a Canadian company
with interests in several countries. On the other hands, Arriola is a licesnsed
general surgeon in the Philippines.
Arriola was offered by SNC-Lavalin the position of Safety Officer in their
project site in Madagascar with a rate of CA&32/hr for 40 hrs/week with
overtime pay for 19 months. He was thire through IPAMS. On June 9, 2008,
Arriola started working in Madagascar.
However, after 3 months, he received a notice of pre-termination from SNC,
to which according to them, was due to the diminishing workload in the area
and unavailability of alternative assignments. Arriola was subsequently
repatriated. SNC deposited 2,636.80 DOLLARS, based on Canadian Labor
Law.
Agggrieved, Arriola fileda complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
fees due. In their Position, SNC said the dismissal was because of the
slowdown of Madagascar economy.
The LA ruled that the complaint of Arriola lacked merit. It ruled that the rights
and obligations among and between the OFW and the employer were
governed by the employment contract. Thus, the foreign law which governed
the contract were applied.
The NLRC reversed the LA’s decision and ruled that Arriola was illegally
dismissed by the PETITIONERS. Citing PNB v. Cabansag, the NLRC stated
that whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the the notice should have been given. The employee under the ESA could be
protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, thus the Labor
Code of the Philippines and R.A. 8042 would be rightfully applied. immediately dismissed without giving him the opportunity to explain and
Additionally, Arriola’s papers were processed in the POEA. defend himself. The provisions of the ESA are patently inconsistent with the
right to security of tenure. Both the Constitution and the Labor Code provide
The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, stating that it did not mean that said that this right is available to any employee. In a host of cases, the Court has
foreign law automatically applies in this case. Although parties were free to
establish stipulations in their contracts, the same must remain consistent upheld the employee’s right to security of tenure in the face of oppressive
with law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. management behavior and management prerogative. Security of tenure is a
right which cannot be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and
nebulous basis. Not only do these provisions collide with the right to security
of tenure, but they also deprive the employee of his constitutional right to
Issue:
due process by denying him of any notice of termination and the opportunity
Whether or not the respondent was validly dismissed pursuant to the to be heard. Glaringly, these disadvantageous provisions under the ESA
employment contract produce the same evils which the Court vigorously sought to prevent in the
cases of Pakistan International and Sameer Overseas. Thus, the Court
HELD:
concurs with the CA that the ESA is not applicable in this case as it is
against our fundamental and statutory laws. In fine, as the petitioners failed
Granting arguendo that the labor contract expressly stipulated the
to meet all the four requisites on the applicability of a foreign law, then the
applicability of Canadian law, still, Arriola’s employment cannot be governed
Philippine labor laws must govern the overseas employment contract of
by such foreign law because the third requisite is not satisfied. A perusal of
Arriola.
the ESA will show that some of its provisions are contrary to the Constitution
and the labor laws of the Philippines. First, the ESA does not require any
ground for the early termination of employment. Article 54 thereof only
GARGALLO V. DOHLE
provides that no employer should terminate the employment of an employee
G.R. No. 215551, August 17, 2016
unless a written notice had been given in advance. Necessarily, the
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
employer can dismiss any employee for any ground it so desired. At its own
pleasure, the foreign employer is endowed with the absolute power to end
the employment of an employee even on the most whimsical grounds.
FACTS:
Second, the ESA allows the employer to dispense with the prior notice of
Petitioner filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits against
termination to an employee. Article 65 (4) thereof indicated that the employer
respondents before the NLRC, stemming from his claim that: (1) he
could terminate the employment without notice by simply paying the
accidentally fell on deck while lifting heavy loads of oil drum; (2) he remained
employee a severance pay computed on the basis of the period within which
permanently unfit for further sea service despite major surgery; (3) his total There being no cogent reason to depart from the aforementioned ruling, the
unfitness to work that was certified by his chosen physician must prevail over Court denies petitioner’s MOR insofar as it seeks to reinstate NLRC’s ruling.
self-serving assessment of the company based physicians.
Respondents countered that their assessment must prevail considering that: However, petitioner’s entitlement to income benefit must be recognized.
(1) they were the ones who continuously treated petitioners; (2) petitioner Repondents must solidarily and jointly pay for such.
failed to comply with the procedure under POEA-SEC.
The LA and the NLRC gave credence to the petitioner’s medical report, and
thus granted him the disability claim, and demanded that the respondent
jointly pay the petitioner his benefits.
However, the Ca disagreed anddismissed the petitioner’s complaint. It ruled
that the claim was premature because: (1) the petitioner was still under
medical treatment by the company-designated physicians; (2) no medical
assessment has yet been issued by the physicians as to his fitness since the
240-day treatment has not yet lapsed; and (3) the petitioner has not yet
consulted his doctor, hence no sufficient basis. CA also gave credence to
the fact that company-designated physicians has observed him closely while
his personal doctor has only mey him ones.
Both parties submitted Motions for Reconsideration.

ISSUE: W/N the LA and the NLRC correctly ruled on the matter.

HELD:
NO, such arguments remain untenable. It is undisputed that that the
petitioner was repatriated on March 11, 2012 and immediately subjected to
medical treatement, even after the 120-day period had lapsed because of
the persistent pain felt by the petitioner. The CA correctly ruled that such
claim was premature. Moreover, the petitioner failed to comply with the
prescribed procedure under Sec 20a (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC on the joint
appointment by the parties of a third doctor in case a disagreement arise
between the two results.