PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES v. TODARO
254 SCRA 153 June 8, 2007
FACTS
Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed with the RTC of Makati City, a
complaint for Sum of Money and Damages with Preliminary Attachment against
Pioneer International Limited (PIL), Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI),
Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. McDonald (McDonald) and
Philip J. Klepzig (Klepzig).
Todaro alleged that PIL is a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Australia and is
principally engaged in the ready-mix concrete and concrete aggregates business;
PPHI is the company established by PIL to own and hold the stocks of its
operating company in the Philippines; PCPI is the company established by PIL to
undertake its business of ready-mix concrete, concrete aggregates and quarrying
operations in the Philippines; McDonald is the Chief Executive of the Hongkong
office of PIL; and, Klepzig is the President and Managing Director of PPHI and
PCPI; Todaro has been the managing director of Betonval Readyconcrete, Inc.
(Betonval), a company engaged in pre-mixed concrete and concrete aggregate
production; he resigned from Betonval in February 1996; in May 1996, PIL
contacted Todaro and asked him if he was available to join them in connection
with their intention to establish a ready-mix concrete plant and other related operations
in the Philippines; Todaro informed PIL of his availability and interest to
join them; subsequently, PIL and Todaro came to an agreement wherein the former
consented to engage the services of the latter as a consultant for two to three
months, after which, he would be employed as the manager of PIL's ready-mix
concrete operations should the company decide to invest in the Philippines;
subsequently, PIL started its operations in the Philippines; however, it
refused to comply with its undertaking to employ Todaro on a permanent basis.
Instead of filing an Answer, PPHI, PCPI and Klepzig separately moved to dismiss
the complaint on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action, that
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, as the
same is within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, and that the complaint should be
dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of forum
non conveniens. RTC dismissed the MTD which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE
W/N the RTC should have dismissed the case on the basis of forum
non conveniens due to a presence of a foreign element
RULING
NO. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis
of said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the case of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, this Court held that "xxx [a] Philippine Court may
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the
following requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the
parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a
position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, (3)
that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its
decision."
The doctrine of forum non
conveniens should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because
Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a
ground. This Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of the
trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do
so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances require the court’s desistance; and that the propriety of
dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is
more properly considered a matter of defense.
Note: the case was also being dismissed on the ground that there
was no cause of action but SC held that there was cause of action, to sustain a
motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the
claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively
stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. And it was also argued in
this case that jurisdiction is with the NLRC and not with the RTC. SC held it
was with RTC, SC has consistently held that where no employer-employee
relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be
resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective
bargaining agreement, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento