MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION v. NLRC G.R. No.

120077 October 13, 2000 FACTS: Private Respondent Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker e plo!ed as a printer at t"e Ma#oon Printin$ Press, S%ltanate o& O an. '%rin$ "is e plo! ent wit" t"e Ma#oon Printin$ Press "e received a letter dated Ma! 2, 1()) &ro Mr. S" idt, $eneral ana$er o& Palace *otel +ei,in$, -"ina and in&or ed t"e Santos t"at "e was reco ended b! one Nestor +%enio, a &riend o& "is. Mr. S" idt o&&ered repondent Santos sa e position as printer b%t wit" "i$"er salar! and increased bene&its. On Ma! ), 1()), Santos wrote to Mr. S" idt and si$ni&ied "is acceptance o& t"e o&&er. ."erea&ter, t"e Palace *otel Mana$er Mr. *ans *enk ailed a read! to si$n e plo! ent contract to Santos. Mr. *enk advised Santos t"at i& t"e contract was acceptable "e %st ret%rn t"e sa e to "i to$et"er wit" "is passport and pict%res. Santos resi$ned &ro t"e Ma#oon Printin$ press e&&ective /%ne 30, 1()) %nder t"e prete0t t"at "e needed at "o e to "elp "is &a il!1s po%ltr! and pi$$er! b%siness. Nove ber 2, 1()) "e started to work at t"e Palace *otel. S%bse3%entl! "e si$ned an a ended e plo! ent contract wit" t"e Palace *otel. Santos reass% ed "is post a&ter "is vacation leave in t"e P"ilippines. On 4%$%st 10, 1()) a letter si$ned b! Mr. S" idt in&or ed respondent Santos t"at "is e plo! ent at t"e Palace *otel print s"op wo%ld be ter inated d%e to b%siness reverses bro%$"t abo%t b! political %p"eaval in -"ina. On Septe ber 2, 1()(, t"e Palace ter inated t"e e plo! ent o& t"e respondent and paid all t"e bene&its incl%din$ "is plane ticket back to Manila. On 5ebr%ar! 20, 1((0 Santos &iled a co plaint &or ille$al dis issal wit" National 6abor Relations -o ission. ."e co plaint na ed Manila *otel -orporation, M*7-6, Palace *otel and Mr. S" idt as respondents. ."e Palace *otel and Mr. S" idt were not served s% ons. ."e 6abor 4rbiter r%led a$ainst t"e petitioner, "ence, "e appealed to t"e N6R- ar$%in$ t"at PO84 "as t"e ,%risdiction over t"e case and not N6R-. ."e N6R- r%led in &avor o& t"e private respondent t"at Santos was ille$all! dis issed &ro e plo! ent. Petitioners &iled a otion &or reconsideration b%t were denied. Santos &iled "is co ent and so as t"e N6R-. ISSUE: 9"et"er or not N6R- "as ,%risdiction over t"e case: NO. 9"et"er or not t"e r%le o& forum non conveniens a! be applied: NO. RULING: ."e N6R- was serio%sl! inconvenient &or% . ."e S%pre e -o%rt noted t"at t"e ain aspects o& t"e case transpired in two &orei$n ,%risdictions and involves p%rel! &orei$n ele ents. ."e onl! link t"at t"e P"ilippines "ave wit" t"is case is t"at respondent Santos is a 5ilipino citi#en. ."e Palace *otel and M*7-6 are &orei$n corporations. Not all cases involvin$ o%r citi#ens can be tried "ere. Respondent Santos was "ired directl! b! t"e Palace *otel, a &orei$n e plo!er and not t"ro%$" t"e intervention o& PO84. ;nder t"e r%le o& forum non conveniens, a P"ilippine co%rt or a$enc! may ass% e ,%risdiction over t"e case i& it c"ooses to do so provided< =1> t"at t"e P"ilippine co%rt is one to w"ic" t"e parties a! convenientl! resort to? =2> t"at t"e P"ilippine co%rt is in a position to ake an intelli$ent decision as to t"e law and t"e &acts? and =3> t"at t"e P"ilippine co%rt "as or is likel! to "ave power to en&orce its decision. ."e conditions

are %navailin$ in t"e case at bar. ."ere was inconvenience in t"e case, w"ic" was co po%nded b! t"e &act t"at t"e proper de&endants, t"e Palace *otel and M*7-6 are not nationals o& t"e P"ilippines. Neit"er are t"e! @doin$ b%siness in t"e P"ilippines. No power to determine app i!a" e aw # Neit"er can an intelli$ent decision be ade as to t"e law $overnin$ t"e e plo! ent contract as s%c" was per&ected in &orei$n soil. ."is calls to &ore t"e application o& t"e principle o& lex loci contractus =t"e law o& t"e place w"ere t"e contract was ade>. ."e e plo! ent contract was not per&ected in t"e P"ilippines. Respondent Santos si$ni&ied "is acceptance b! writin$ a letter w"ile "e was in t"e Rep%blic o& O an. ."is letter was sent to t"e Palace *otel in t"e People1s Rep%blic o& -"ina. No power to determine t$e %a!t& A Neit"er can t"e N6R- deter ine t"e &acts s%rro%ndin$ t"e alle$ed ille$al dis issal as all acts co plained o& took place in +ei,in$, People1s Rep%blic o& -"ina. ."e N6R- was not in a position to deter ine w"et"er t"e .ianna en S3%are incident tr%l! adversel! a&&ected operations o& t"e Palace *otel as to ,%sti&! respondent Santos1 retrenc" ent. Prin!ip e o% e%%e!tivene&&' no power to e(e!)te de!i&ion # 8ven ass% in$ t"at a proper decision co%ld be reac"ed b! t"e N6R-, s%c" wo%ld not "ave an! bindin$ e&&ect a$ainst t"e e plo!er, t"e Palace *otel. ."e Palace *otel is a corporation incorporated %nder t"e laws o& -"ina and was not even served wit" s% ons. /%risdiction over its person was not ac3%ired. ."is is not to sa! t"at P"ilippine co%rts and a$encies "ave no power to solve controversies involvin$ &orei$n e plo!ers. Neit"er are we sa!in$ t"at we do not "ave power over an e plo! ent contract e0ec%ted in a &orei$n co%ntr!. I% Santo& were an *over&ea& !ontra!t wor+er,' a P$i ippine %or)m' &pe!i%i!a - t$e POEA' not t$e NLRC' wo) d prote!t $im. *e is not an @overseas contract workerB a &act w"ic" "e ad its wit" conviction.