# 1.

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Court of Appeals (CAI)

GR No. 122191 Otober !" 199!
Facts:
#ila$ros #orada %as a &i$'t attendant of Saudi
Arabian Airlines (SA()IA). In 199*" %'ile s'e and so+e of
'er o,%or-ers %'o are bot' Saudi nationals (.'a+er and
Alla') %ere in la/,over in 0a-arta" Indonesia" 'er o,%or-er
tried to rape 'er in .'a+er1s 'otel roo+ (galling kasi sila sa
disco). 2ortunatel/" a roo+bo/ and so+e seurit/
personnel 'eard 'er r/ for 'elp and resued 'er and t'e
t%o Saudi nationals %ere arrested and detained b/
Indonesian polie.
(pon t'e return of #orada in 0edda'" t'e o3ers of
SA()IA interro$ated 'er re$ardin$ t'e inident and
re4uested 'er to return to 0a-arta and ooperate in t'e
release of 'is o,%or-ers. 5o%ever" #orada refused to
ooperate due to fear t'at s'e +i$'t be tri-ed 'ene" s'e
%as allo%ed to $o ba- to 0edda' but 'er e+plo/er barred
'er fro+ 0a-arta &i$'ts.
6ater" SA()IA reassi$ned #orada in #anila and 7ust
%'en s'e t'ou$'t t'at t'e 0a-arta inident %as alread/
be'ind 'er" 'er superiors re4uested 'er to +eet %it' a
SA()IA o3er in 0edda' %'i' s'e aeded. (pon 'er
arrival in Saudi" to 'er surprise" s'e %as brou$'t to t'e
polie station and %as fored to drop t'e ase a$ainst 'er
o,%or-ers %'i' s'e a$reed after t'e polie o3ers
on8sated 'er passport. After%ards" s'e %as brou$'t to
ourt and obli$ed to si$n a dou+ent %ritten in Arabi and
%as told t'at it %as neessar/ to lose t'e ase a$ainst
.'a+er and Alla'. 9ut it turned out t'at t'e dou+ent s'e
si$ned is a notie to appear before t'e ourt on 0anuar/ 2:"
199;. S'ortl/ after%ards" SA()IA su++oned 'er to report
to 0edda' one a$ain for furt'er investi$ation %'i' #orada
did so after reeivin$ assurane fro+ 'er e+plo/er t'at t'e
investi$ation %as routinar/ and t'at it posed no dan$er to
'er. 5o%ever" upon 'er appearane and after an 'our of
interro$ation s'e %as onvited b/ t'e ourt of adulter/ and
for violatin$ #usli+ usto+s and %as sentened to <
+ont's i+prison+ent and 2!9 las'es. .'e =rine of #a--a'
%it' t'e belief t'at s'e %as %ron$full/ aused dis+issed
'er ase and allo%ed 'er to leave Saudi. S'ortl/ before 'er
return in #anila" s'e %as ter+inated b/ Saudia %it'out
bein$ infor+ed of t'e ause.
>it' all t'ese" #orada sued Saudia for da+a$es
under Artiles 19 and 21 of t'e Civil Code. SA()IA 8led a
+otion to dis+iss on t'e $round t'at t'e R.C 'as no
7urisdition over t'e ase beause t'e appliable la% s'ould
be t'e la% of Saudi" and also pra/ed for ot'er reliefs under
t'e pre+ises.
Issue:
>'et'er or not SA()IA ?s ontention is orret.
Held:
No.
.'e R.C 'as a4uired 7urisdition over SA()IA %'en
t'e latter 8led a +otion to dis+iss %it' petition for ot'er
reliefs. .'e as-in$ for ot'er reliefs e@etivel/ as-ed t'e
ourt to +a-e a deter+ination of SA()IA1s ri$'ts 'ene a
sub+ission to t'e ourt1s 7urisdition.
In addition" t'e R.C a4uired 7urisdition over t'e
ase beause as alle$ed in t'e o+plaint of #orada" s'e is
brin$in$ t'e suit for da+a$es under t'e provisions of our
Civil 6a% and not t'e Arabian 6a%. S'e t'en 'as t'e ri$'t to
8le it in t'e AC R.C beause under t'e Rules of Court" a
plainti@ +a/ elet %'et'er to 8le an ation in persona+
(ase at bar) in t'e plae %'ere s'e resides or %'ere t'e
defendant resides. Obviousl/" it is %ell %it'in 'er ri$'t to
8le t'e ase 'ere beause if s'e %ill 8le it in Saudi it %ill be
ver/ disadvanta$eous for 'er.
2urt'er+ore" one i+portant test fator to deter+ine
%'ere to 8le a ase" if t'ere is a forei$n ele+ent involved" is
t'e so alled Blous atusC or %'ere an at 'as been done.
In t'e ase at bar" #orada %as alread/ %or-in$ in #anila
%'en s'e %as su++oned b/ 'er superior to $o to Saudi
Arabia to +eet %it' a Saudia Airlines o3er. S'e %as not
infor+ed t'at s'e %as $oin$ to appear in a ourt trial.
Clearl/" s'e %as defrauded into appearin$ before a ourt
trial %'i' led to 'er %ron$ful onvition. .'e at of
defraudin$" %'i' is tortuous" %as o++itted in #anila and
t'is led to 'er 'u+iliation" +iser/" and su@erin$. And
appl/in$ t'e torts priniple in a on&its ase" t'e SC 8nds
t'at t'e ='ilippines ould be said as a situs of t'e tort (t'e
plae %'ere t'e alle$ed tortious ondut too- plae).
#2. Salvador 5 6aurel vs Ra+on Garia (RA6=5)
GR No. 92*1; 0ul/ 2<" 199*
Laurel vs. Garcia (Roponggi Property
Case)
Doctrine: A propert/ ontinues to be part of t'e publi
do+ain" not available for private appropriation or o%ners'ip
until t'ere is a for+al delaration on t'e part of t'e
$overn+ent to %it'dra% it fro+ bein$ su'.
FactsD .'e sub7et Roppon$i propert/ is one of t'e four
properties in 0apan a4uired b/ t'e ='ilippine $overn+ent
under t'e Reparations A$ree+ent entered into %it' 0apan
on 9 #a/ 19<E" t'e ot'er lots bein$ t'e Na+peidai =ropert/
(site of ='ilippine F+bass/ C'aner/)" t'e Gobe Co++erial
=ropert/ (Co++erial lot used as %are'ouse and par-in$ lot
of onsulate sta@)" and t'e Gobe Residential =ropert/ (a
vaant residential lot).
.'e properties and t'e apital $oods and servies proured
fro+ t'e 0apanese $overn+ent for national develop+ent
pro7ets are part of t'e inde+ni8ation to t'e 2ilipino people
for t'eir losses in life and propert/ and t'eir su@erin$ durin$
>orld >ar II.
.'e Reparations A$ree+ent provides t'at reparations
valued at H<<* +illion %ould be pa/able in 2* /ears in
aordane %it' annual s'edules of proure+ents to be
8Ied b/ t'e ='ilippine and 0apanese $overn+ents (Artile 2"
Reparations A$ree+ent).
.'e Roppon$i propert/ %as a4uired fro+ t'e 0apanese
$overn+ent under t'e Seond Jear S'edule and listed
under t'e 'eadin$ BGovern+ent SetorC" t'rou$'
Reparations Contrat ;** dated 2: 0une 19<!. .'e
Ropon$$i propert/ onsists of t'e land and buildin$ Bfor t'e
C'aner/ of t'e ='ilippine F+bass/.C As intended" it
bea+e t'e site of t'e ='ilippine F+bass/ until t'e latter
%as transferred to Na+peidai on 22 0ul/ 19:E %'en t'e
Roppon$i buildin$ needed +a7or repairs. )ue to t'e failure
of our $overn+ent to provide neessar/ funds" t'e
Roppon$i propert/ 'as re+ained undeveloped sine t'at
ti+e.
)urin$ t'e inu+ben/ of =resident A4uino" a proposal %as
+ade b/ for+er ='ilippine A+bassador to 0apan" Carlos 0.
KaldeL" to lease t'e sub7et propert/ to Ga7i+a Corporation"
a 0apanese 8r+" in eI'an$e of t'e onstrution of 2
buildin$s in Roppon$i" 1 buildin$ in Na+peidai" and t'e
renovation of t'e ='ilippine C'aner/ in Na+peidai. .'e
Govern+ent did not at favorabl/ to said proposal" but
instead" on 11 Au$ust 19!E" =resident A4uino reated a
o++ittee to stud/ t'e disposition or utiliLation of
='ilippine $overn+ent properties in .o-/o and Gobe t'ou$'
AO,;" and AO ;,A to ;,). On 2< 0ul/ 19!:" t'e =resident
issued FO 29E entitlin$ non,2ilipino itiLens or entities to
avail of reparations1 apital $oods and servies in t'e event
of sale" lease or disposition. .'e four properties in 0apan
inludin$ t'e Roppon$i %ere spei8all/ +entioned in t'e
8rst B>'ereasC lause. A+idst opposition b/ various
setors" t'e FIeutive bran' of t'e $overn+ent 'as been
pus'in$" %it' $reat vi$or" its deision to sell t'e reparations
properties startin$ %it' t'e Roppon$i lot.
.%o petitions for pro'ibition %ere 8led see-in$ to en7oin
respondents" t'eir representatives and a$ents fro+
proeedin$ %it' t'e biddin$ for t'e sale of t'e ;"1:9 s4. +.
of land at ;*E Roppon$$i" <,C'o+e #inato,-u" .o-/o" 0apan
s'eduled on 21 2ebruar/ 199*M t'e te+porar/ restainin$
order of %'i' %as $ranted b/ t'e ourt on 2* 2ebruar/
199*. In G.R. No. 92*N:" a %rit of +anda+us %as pra/ed for
to o+pel t'e respondents to full/ dislose to t'e publi t'e
basis of t'eir deision to pus' t'rou$' %it' t'e sale of t'e
Roppon$i propert/ inspite of stron$ publi opposition and to
eIplain t'e proeedin$s %'i' e@etivel/ prevent t'e
partiipation of 2ilipino itiLens and entities in t'e biddin$
proess.
IssueD >ill t'e dotrine of leI loi rei sitae appl/ (the la o!
the land here the property is situated shall apply) O
Ruling: No. .'e respondents tr/ to $et around t'e publi
do+inion 'arater of t'e Roppon$i propert/ b/ insistin$
t'at 0apanese la% and not our Civil Code s'ould appl/.
It is eIeedin$l/ stran$e %'/ our top $overn+ent o3ials"
of all people" s'ould be t'e ones to insist t'at in t'e sale of
eItre+el/ valuable $overn+ent propert/" 0apanese la% and
not ='ilippine la% s'ould prevail. .'e 0apanese la% , its
overa$e and e@ets" %'en enated" and eIeptions to its
provision P is not presented to t'e Court It is si+pl/
asserted t'at t'e lex loci rei sitae or 0apanese la% s'ould
appl/ %it'out statin$ %'at t'at la% provides. It is a ed on
fait' t'at 0apanese la% %ould allo% t'e sale.
>e see no reason %'/ a on&it of la% rule s'ould appl/
%'en no on&it of la% situation eIists. A on&it of la%
situation arises onl/ %'enD (1) .'ere is a dispute over
t'e title or ownership of an i++ovable" su' t'at t'e
apait/ to ta-e and transfer i++ovables" t'e for+alities of
onve/ane" t'e essential validit/ and e@et of t'e transfer"
or t'e interpretation and e@et of a onve/ane" are to be
deter+ined (See Salon$a" Private International Law" 19!1
ed." pp. ;::,;!;)M and (2) A forei$n la% on land o%ners'ip
and its onve/ane is asserted to on&it %it' a do+esti
la% on t'e sa+e +atters. 5ene" t'e need to deter+ine
%'i' la% s'ould appl/.
In t'e instant ase" none of t'e above ele+ents eIists.
.'e issues are not onerned %it' validit/ of o%ners'ip or
title. .'ere is no 4uestion t'at t'e propert/ belon$s to t'e
='ilippines. .'e issue is t'e aut'orit/ of t'e respondent
o3ials to validl/ dispose of propert/ belon$in$ to t'e
State. And t'e validit/ of t'e proedures adopted to e@et
its sale. .'is is $overned b/ ='ilippine 6a%. .'e rule of lex
situs does not appl/.
.'e assertion t'at t'e opinion of t'e Seretar/ of 0ustie
s'eds li$'t on t'e relevane of t'e lex situsrule is
+isplaed. .'e opinion does not ta-le t'e alienability of
t'e real properties proured t'rou$' reparations nor t'e
eIistene in %'at bod/ of t'e aut'orit/ to sell t'e+. In
disussin$ %'o are apableof acquiring t'e lots" t'e
Seretar/ +erel/ eIplains t'at it is t'e forei$n la% %'i'
s'ould deter+inewho can acquire the properties so t'at t'e
onstitutional li+itation on a4uisition of lands of t'e publi
do+ain to 2ilipino itiLens and entities %'oll/ o%ned b/
2ilipinos is inappliable. >e see no point in belaborin$
%'et'er or not t'is opinion is orret. >'/ s'ould %e
disuss %'o an a4uire t'e Roppon$i lot %'en t'ere is no
s'o%in$ t'at it an be soldO
# ;. GaLu'iro 5ase$a%a and Nippon Fn$ineerin$
Consultants Co." 6td vs Gita+ura (O2F)
GR No. 1N91:: Nove+ber 2;" 2**:
Characters:
Nippon (Petitioner) - a Japanese consultancy firm providing
technical and management support in the infrastructure projects of
foreign governments.
Hasegawa (Petitioner) - Nippons General Manager.
Kitamura (Respondent) - Japanese national permanently residing
in the Philippines.
. he !C" su#ject of the litigation $as entered into and perfected in
o%yo& Japan& #y Japanese nationals& and $ritten $holly in the
Japanese language.
FACTS:
Petitioner Nippon entered into !ndependent Contractor "greement
'!C"( $ith respondent )itamura as a Project Manager of *outhern
agalog "ccess +oad '*"+( Project for a year.
,hen *"+ project $as near completion& -P,. engaged the
consultancy services of Nippon for detailed engineering and
construction supervision of the /onga#on-/aler +oad !mprovement
'//+!( Project. +espondent $as named as project manager in the
contracts appendi0.
Petitioner )a1uhiro .asega$a& Nippon2s general manager&
informed respondent that the company had no more intention of
automatically rene$ing his !C". .is services $ould #e engaged #y
the company only up to the su#stantial completion of the *"+
Project.
+espondent )itamura& through his la$yer& re3uested a negotiation
conference and demanded that he #e assigned in //+! Project.
Nippon insisted that respondents contract $as for a fi0ed term that
has already e0pired and refused to negotiate for the rene$al of
!C".
+espondent filed a Civil Case for specific performance and
damages $ith +C 4ipa.
Petitioners contention:
5. the !C" had #een perfected in Japan and e0ecuted #y and #et$een
Japanese nationals& moved to dismiss the complaint for lac% of
jurisdiction.
6. hey asserted that the claim for improper pre-termination of
respondent2s !C" could only #e heard and ventilated in the proper
courts of Japan follo$ing the principles of lex loci
celebrationis and lex contractus.
56
+C: -enied the motion to dismiss.
C": resolved to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds7
5. for lac% of statement of material dates and
6. for insufficient verification and certification against forum shopping.
"ggrieved #y this development& petitioners filed $ith the C"& still
$ithin the reglementary period& a second Petition
for Certiorari under +ule 89 already stating therein the material
dates and attaching thereto the proper verification and certification.
his second petition& $hich su#stantially raised the same issues as
those in the first.
C" 'ruling on the merits of second petition(:
5. :inding no grave a#use of discretion in the trial court2s denial of the
motion to dismiss.
6. hat the principle of lex loci celebrationis $as not applica#le to the
case& #ecause no$here in the pleadings $as the validity of the
$ritten agreement put in issue.
;. hat the trial court $as correct in applying instead the principle
of lex loci solutionis.
6;
<. -enied petitioners M+.
Petitioners instituted the instant Petition for +evie$ on Certiorari.
ISSU:
,=N the su#ject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for
specific performance and damages involving contracts e0ecuted outside
the country #y foreign nationals may #e assailed on the principles of ".(lex
loci celebrationis& /.(lex contractus& C.(the >state of the most significant
relationship rule&> or forum non conveniens. =+
,=N +C has jurisdiction over the case.
H!":
?@*.
5. he only issue is the jurisdiction& hence& choice-of-la$ rules as raised #y
the petitioner is inapplica#le and not yet called for 'reference to lex loci, lex
contractus& or state of most significant rule(. he petitioner prematurely
invo%ed the said rules #efore pointing out any conflict #et$een the la$s of
Japan and the Philippines.
6. he doctrine on forum non conveniens cannot #e invo%ed to deprive the
+C of its jurisdiction. -ismissing the case on this ground re3uires a factual
determination hence the principle is considered to #e more a matter of
defense.
SC: -enied petitioners +evie$.
!n the Motion to -ismiss
<A
filed $ith the trial court: ".(petitioners
never contended that the +C is an inconvenient forum.
/.(hey merely argued that the applica#le la$ $hich $ill determine
the validity or invalidity of respondent2s claim is that of Japan&
follo$ing the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus
=n petition for revie$ #efore this Court& petitioners maintained
the forum non conveniens defense& and ne$ argument that the
applica#le principle is the Bstate of theC most significant relationship
rule.
95
Petitioners# inconstanc$ in t%eir arguments to emp%asi&e t%eir
incorrect assertion o' con'(ict o' (aws princip(es)
!n the judicial resolution of conflicts pro#lems& three consecutive
phases are involved: *urisdiction& c%oice o' (aw& and recognition
and en'orcement o' *udgments.
Corresponding to these phases are the follo$ing 3uestions: '5(
,here can or should litigation #e initiatedD '6( ,hich la$ $ill the
court applyD and ';( ,here can the resulting judgment #e
enforcedD
Jurisdiction vs Choice of 4a$
5. +urisdiction E Where should litigation be initiated? Court must
have jurisdiction over the su#ject matter& the parties& the issues& the
property& the res. "lso considers& $hether it is fair to cause a defendant to
travel to this stateF choice of la$ as%s the further 3uestion $hether the
application of a su#stantive la$ $hich $ill determine the merits of the case
is fair to #oth parties.
6. C%oice o' !aw Which law will the court apply? =nce a local court
ta%es cogni1ance& it does not mean that the local la$s must automatically
apply. he court must determine $hich su#stantive la$ $hen applied to the
merits $ill #e fair to #oth parties.
In t%e case at ,ar- on($ t%e 'irst p%ase is at issue.
*urisdiction)1wphi1
:or a court to validly e0ercise its po$er to adjudicate a
controversy& ".( it must have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the
petitioner& over the defendant or the respondent& /.( over the
su#ject matter& C.( over the issues of the case and& -.( in cases
involving property& over the res or the thing $hich is the su#ject of
the litigation.
9G
!n assailing the trial court2s jurisdiction herein& petitioners are
actua(($ re'erring to su,*ect matter *urisdiction)
Jurisdiction over *u#ject Matter:
5. conferred #y the sovereign authority $hich esta#lishes and
organi1es the court
6. !t is given only #y la$ and in the manner prescri#ed #y la$.
;. !t is further determined #y the allegations of the complaint
irrespective of $hether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
claims asserted therein.
-efinition of erms:
!e/ (oci ce(e,rationis - relates to the >la$ of the place of the
ceremony>
8;
or the la$ of the place $here a contract is made.
!e/ contractus or (e/ (oci contractus means the >la$ of the
place $here a contract is e0ecuted or to #e performed.>
- !t controls the nature&
construction& and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the
la$ voluntarily agreed upon #y the parties or the la$ intended #y
them either e0pressly or implicitly.
0State o' t%e most signi'icant re(ations%ip ru(e -&> to ascertain
$hat state la$ to apply to a dispute& the court should determine
$hich state has the most su#stantial connection to the occurrence
and the parties.
Necessarily& as the only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction&
choice-of-la$ rules are not only inapplica#le #ut also not yet called
for.
Petitioners2 premature invocation of choice-of-la$ rules is e0posed
#y the fact that they have not yet pointed out any conflict #et$een
the la$s of Japan and ours. /efore determining $hich la$ should
apply& first there should e0ist a conflict of la$s situation re3uiring
the application of the conflict of la$s rules. "lso& $hen the la$ of a
foreign country is invo%ed to provide the proper rules for the
solution of a case& the e0istence of such la$ must #e pleaded and
proved.
!t should #e noted that $hen a conflicts case& one involving a
foreign element& is #rought #efore a court or administrative agency&
there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1)
dismiss t%e case- eit%er ,ecause o' (ac2 o' *urisdiction or
re'usa( to assume *urisdiction o3er t%e case4
(5) assume *urisdiction o3er t%e case and app($ t%e interna(
(aw o' t%e 'orum4 or
(6) assume *urisdiction o3er t%e case and ta2e into account or
app($ t%e (aw o' some ot%er State or States)
he courts po$er to hear cases and controversies is derived from
the Constitution and the la$s. ,hile it may choose to recogni1e
la$s of foreign nations& the court is not limited #y foreign sovereign
la$ short of treaties or other formal agreements& even in matters
regarding rights provided #y foreign sovereigns& and forum non
conveniens &#e used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction.
:irst& it is not a proper #asis for a motion to dismiss #ecause
*ection 5& +ule 58 of the +ules of Court does not include it as a
ground. 'appropriate recourse is to file an ans$er& proceed to trial
and appeal(
*econd& $hether a suit should #e entertained or dismissed on the
#asis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the
particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court.
GA
!n this case& the +C decided to assume jurisdiction.
hird& the propriety of dismissing a case #ased on this principle
re3uires a factual determinationF hence& this conflicts principle is
more properly considered a matter of defense.
GH
RTC is 3ested ,$ (aw wit% t%e power to entertain and %ear t%e ci3i(
case 'i(ed ,$ respondent and the grounds raised ,$ petitioners to
assai( t%at *urisdiction are inappropriate& the trial and appellate courts
correctly denied the petitioners motion to dismiss.
# N. Guerrero1s .ransport Servies" In vs 9la/blo-
.ransportation Servies F+plo/ees Assoiation (A#ANG)
GR No. 6,N1<1! 0une ;*" 19:E
#<. Nort'ern =ai8 R. Co. Ks 9abo- (>I0)
1<N (S 19* #a/ 2!" 1!9N
# E. International S'ool Alliane of Fduators vs 5on
6eonardo A Auisu+bin$ (O2F (6F.)
GR No. 12!!N< Q ;;; SCRA 1; 0une 1" 2***
Characters:
!nternational *chool '+espondent( - pursuant to Presidential
-ecree G;6& is a domestic educational institution esta#lished
primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other
temporary residents.
!nternational *chool "lliance of @ducators 'Petitioner( -a legitimate
la#or union and the collective #argaining representative of all
faculty mem#ers of the *chool.
FACTS:
Private respondent !nternational *chool pursuant to *ec.6'c( of P.-
G;6 $hich authori1es the *chool to employ its o$n teaching and
management personnel selected #y it either locally or a#road& from
Philippine or other nationalities& hired #oth foreign and local
teachers as mem#ers of its faculty.
he *chool employs four tests to determine $hether a faculty
mem#er should #e classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire:
a. ,hat is one2s domicileD
#. ,here is one2s home economyD
c. o $hich country does one o$e economic allegianceD
d. ,as the individual hired a#road specifically to $or% in the *chool
and $as the *chool responsi#le for #ringing that
individual to the PhilippinesD
*hould the ans$er to any of these 3ueries point to the Philippines&
the faculty mem#er is classified as a local hireF other$ise& he or
she is deemed a foreign-hire.
/enefits given to foreign hires not accorded to local hires: 5.(
.ousing 6.( ransportation
;.( *hipping cost <.( a0es and 9.( .ome leave travel allo$ance.
:oreign-hires are also paid a salary rate t$enty-five percent '69I(
more than local-hires.
RAS7NS: a.( the dislocation factor #.( limited tenure
5. :oreign hire have to uproot himself from his
home country
6. 4eave his family and friends and ta%e the
ris% of deviating from a promising career
path- all for the purpose of pursuing hi
profession as an educator& in foreign land.
;. he ne$ foreign hire is faced $ith
economic realities: decent a#ode for
oneself andJor for one2s family& effective
means of transportation& allo$ance for the
education of one2s children& ade3uate
insurance against illness and death& and of
course the primary #enefit of a #asic
salaryJretirement compensation.
<. /ecause of a limited tenure& the foreign hire
is confronted again $ith the same economic
reality after his term: that he $ill eventually
and inevita#ly return to his home country
$here he $ill have to confront the
uncertainty of o#taining suita#le
employment after along period in a foreign
land.
he compensation scheme is simply the *chool2s adaptive
measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of
attracting competent professionals in the field of international
education.
Petitioner !*"@& in negotiations for a ne$ C/"& contested the
difference in salary rates #et$een the foreign and local hires and
as to inclusion of latter in the #argaining unit caused a deadloc%
#et$een the parties.
Petitioner filed a notice of stri%e.
-=4@ *ec. denied petitioners M+.
Petitioners claim:
5. the point-of-hire classification employed #y the *chool is
discriminatory to :ilipinos.
6. the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial
discrimination.
)O6F Seretar/(in dis+issin$ petitioner1s #R) D
5. these non-:ilipino local-hires received the same #enefits as the
:ilipino local-hires.
6. he Principle >e3ual pay for e3ual $or%> does not find
applications in the present case.
;. he international character of the *chool re3uires the hiring of
foreign personnel to deal $ith different nationalities and different
cultures& among the student population.
N. .oo- cogni1ance of the e0istence of a system of salaries and
#enefits accorded to foreign hired personnel $hich system is
universally recogni1ed.
9. hat certain amenities have to #e provided to these people in
order to entice them to render their services in the Philippines
and in the process remain competitive in the international
mar%et.
6. he fact that foreign hires have limited contract of
employment unli%e the local hires $ho enjoy security of tenure.
o apply parity therefore& in $ages and other #enefits $ould
also re3uire parity in other terms and conditions of employment
$hich include the employment $hich include the employment
contract.
.'e partiesR 1992,199< C9A points us to t'e onditions and
provisions for salar/ and professional o+pensation %'erein
t'e parties a$ree as follo%sD
All +e+bers of t'e bar$ainin$ unit s'all be o+pensated
onl/ in aordane %it' AppendiI C 'ereof provided t'at
t'e Superintendent of t'e S'ool 'as t'e disretion to
reruit and 'ire eIpatriate tea'ers fro+ abroad" under
ter+s and onditions t'at are onsistent %it' aepted
international pratie.
AppendiI C of said C9A furt'er providesD
.'e ne% salar/ s'edule is dee+ed at e4uit/ %it' t'e
Overseas Reruited Sta@ (OSRS) salar/ s'edule. .'e 2<S
di@erential is re&etive of t'e a$reed value of s/ste+
displae+ent and ontrated status of t'e OSRS as
di@erentiated fro+ t'e tenured status of 6oall/ Reruited
Sta@ (6RS).
G. he Knion cannot also invo%e the e3ual protection clause to
justify its claim of parity.
I""#$:
>ON t'e s'ool1s pratie of aordin$ forei$n 'ires 'i$'er
salaries and bene8t t'an loal 'ires are validO
H$LD:
"C: Granted in part. Orders of )O6F Se. are reversed.
NO.
he Constitution in the "rticle on *ocial Justice and .uman +ights
e0horts Congress to >give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human
dignity& reduce social& economic& and political ine3ualities.>
he very #road "rticle 5H of the Civil Code re3uires every person&
>in the e0ercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties&
BtoC act $ith justice& give everyone his due& and o#serve honesty
and good faith.
!nternational la$& $hich springs from general principles of
la$&li%e$ise proscri#es discrimination.
General principles of la$ include principles of e3uity& i.e.& the
general principles of fairness and justice& #ased on the test of $hat
is reasona#le.
he Constitution also directs the *tate to promote >e3uality of
employment opportunities for all.>
he 4a#or Code provides that the *tate shall >ensure e3ual $or%
opportunities regardless of se0& race or creed.>
Nota#ly& the !nternational Covenant on @conomic& *ocial& and
Cultural +ights& supra& in "rticle G thereof& provides:
he *tates Parties to the present Covenant recogni1e the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of just and favoura#le conditions of
$or%& $hich ensure& in particular:
a. +emuneration $hich provides all $or%ers& as a minimum& $ith:
'i( :air $ages and e3ual remuneration for $or% of e3ual value
$ithout distinction of any %ind& in particular $omen #eing
guaranteed conditions of $or% not inferior to those enjoyed #y men&
$ith e3ual pay for e3ual $or%F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
@LK"4 P"?& :=+ @LK"4 ,=+) .
he need of the *chool to attract foreign-hires& salaries should
not #e used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. he
local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they
ought to #e paid the same salaries as the latter.
he >dislocation factor> and the foreign-hires2 limited tenure also
cannot serve as valid #ases for the distinction in salary rates.
!n this case& t%e point8o'8%ire c(assi'ication employed #y
respondent *chool to justify the distinction in the salary rates of
foreign-hires and local hires to #e an in3a(id c(assi'ication.
here is no reasona#le distinction #et$een the services
rendered #y foreign-hires and local-hires.
)e8nition of ter+sD
"alary% defined in /lac%2s 4a$ -ictionary '9th ed.( as a
re$ard or recompense for services performed.
, Philippine 4egal @ncyclopedia states that >salary> is
the >BcConsideration paid at regular intervals for the
rendering of services.
, !n !ongco v. "ational #abor $elations Commission,
>salary> means a recompense or consideration made
to a person for his pains or industry in another man2s
#usiness.
&argaining #nit% a group of employees of a given
employer& comprised of all or less than all of the entire #ody of
employees& consistent $ith e3uity to the employer& indicate to
#e the #est suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective #argaining provisions of the la$.
F'C()R":
(1) the $ill of the employees 'Glo#e -octrine(F
(5) affinity and unity of the employees2 interest& such as
su#stantial similarity of $or% and duties& or similarity of
compensation and $or%ing conditions '*u#stantial Mutual
!nterests +ule(F
(6) prior collective #argaining historyF and
(9) similarity of employment status.
#:. Ca/etano 6i+ vs Insular Colletor of Custo+s (A#ANG
(6F.)
GR No. 6,11:<9 Q ;E =5I6 N:2 #ar' 1E" 191: