Manila Hotel Corporation vs National Labor
Relations Commission
In May 1988, Marcelo
Santos was an overseas worker in Oman. In June 1988, he was recruited by Palace
Hotel in Beijing, China. Due to higher pay and benefits, Santos agreed to the
hotel’s job offer and so he started working there in November 1988. The
employment contract between him and Palace Hotel was however without the
intervention of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). In
August 1989, Palace Hotel notified Santos that he will be laid off due to business
reverses. In September 1989, he was officially terminated.
In February 1990, Santos
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC)
and Manila Hotel International, Ltd. (MHIL). The Palace Hotel was impleaded but
no summons were served upon it. MHC is a government owned and controlled
corporation. It owns 50% of MHIL, a foreign corporation (Hong Kong). MHIL
manages the affair of the Palace Hotel. The labor arbiter who handled the case
ruled in favor of Santos. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
affirmed the labor arbiter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over
the case.
HELD: No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient forum for
the following reasons:
1.
The only link that the
Philippines has in this case is the fact that Santos is a Filipino;
2.
However, the Palace
Hotel and MHIL are foreign corporations – MHC cannot be held liable because it
merely owns 50% of MHIL, it has no direct business in the affairs of the Palace
Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction can’t be pierced because it was not shown
that MHC is directly managing the affairs of MHIL. Hence, they are separate
entities.
3.
Santos’ contract with
the Palace Hotel was not entered into in the Philippines;
4.
Santos’ contract was
entered into without the intervention of the POEA (had POEA intervened, NLRC
still does not have jurisdiction because it will be the POEA which will hear
the case);
5.
MHIL and the Palace
Hotel are not doing business in the Philippines; their agents/officers are not
residents of the Philippines;
Due to the foregoing,
the NLRC cannot possibly determine all the relevant facts pertaining to the
case. It is not competent to determine the facts because the acts complained of
happened outside our jurisdiction. It cannot determine which law is applicable.
And in case a judgment is rendered, it cannot be enforced against the Palace
Hotel (in the first place, it was not served any summons).
The Supreme Court
emphasized that under the rule of forum non conveniens, a
Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses
to do so provided:
(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.
None of the above
conditions are apparent in the case at bar.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento