Pacific Consultancy v. Schonfeld | G.R. No 166920 | February 19, 2007 | Callejo, Sr.

Facts:
Respondent Schonfeld is a Canadian citizen who is a resident alien of the Philippines. Having
acquired an employment permit, he worked for Pacicon Philippines, Inc. (PPI) as Sector
Manager. He was subsequently fired because PPI had not been successful in the water and
sanitation sector. He was, however, requested to stay put at his job for a while.
Respondent filed with PPI several claims. PPI partially settled some of his claims but
refused to pay the rest, which prompted Schonfeld to file for illegal dismissal.

Issues:
(1) Whether there existed an employment contract between the parties. (YES)
(2) Whether there existed an Employer –Employee relationship. (YES)
(3) Whether the Philippine Labor Arbiter can take cognizance over the case notwithstanding
what was stated in the Employment Contract. (YES)

Held:

(1) Yes, there was an employment contract. It bears stressing that under the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code, one of the requirements for the issuance of an
employment permit is the employment contract. Section 5, Rule XIV (Employment of Aliens) of
the Omnibus Rules dictates that a requisite to the issuance of an alien employment permit is
the existence of an employment contract.
Thus, as claimed by respondent, he had an employment contract with petitioner PPI;
otherwise, petitioner PPI would not have filed an application for a Permit with the DOLE.
Petitioners are thus estopped from alleging that the PCIJ, not petitioner PPI, had been the
employer of respondent all along.

(2) Yes, there was Employer-Employee relationship. All four prongs of the four-fold test
were fulfilled.

(3) Yes, the Philippine Labor Arbiter may take cognizance over the case. The settled rule
on stipulations regarding venue, as held by this Court in the vintage case of Philippine Banking
Corporation v. Tensuan, is that while they are considered valid and enforceable, venue
stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the
Revised 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. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive

Decision: Case remanded to the Labor Arbiter.

Gastanes, Raphael Edwin L.