You are on page 1of 10

# 1.

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Court of Appeals (CAI)

GR No. 122191 Otober !" 199!
#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 $round t'at t'e R.C 'as no
7urisdition over t'e ase beause t'e appliable la% s'ould
be t'e la% of Saudi" and also pra/ed for ot'er reliefs under
t'e pre+ises.
>'et'er or not SA()IA ?s ontention is orret.
.'e R.C 'as a4uired 7urisdition over SA()IA %'en
t'e latter 8led a +otion to dis+iss %it' petition for ot'er
reliefs. .'e as-in$ 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
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$$i propert/ onsists of t'e land and buildin$ Bfor t'e
C'aner/ of t'e ='ilippine F+bass/.C As intended" it
bea+e t'e site of t'e ='ilippine F+bass/ until t'e latter
%as transferred to Na+peidai on 22 0ul/ 19:E %'en t'e
Roppon$i buildin$ needed +a7or repairs. )ue to t'e failure
of our $overn+ent to provide neessar/ funds" t'e
Roppon$i propert/ 'as re+ained undeveloped sine t'at
)urin$ t'e inu+ben/ of =resident A4uino" a proposal %as
+ade b/ for+er ='ilippine A+bassador to 0apan" Carlos 0.
KaldeL" to lease t'e sub7et propert/ to Ga7i+a Corporation"
a 0apanese 8r+" in eI'an$e of t'e onstrution of 2
buildin$s in Roppon$i" 1 buildin$ in Na+peidai" and t'e
renovation of t'e ='ilippine C'aner/ in Na+peidai. .'e
Govern+ent did not at favorabl/ to said proposal" but
instead" on 11 Au$ust 19!E" =resident A4uino reated a
o++ittee to stud/ t'e disposition or utiliLation of
='ilippine $overn+ent properties in .o-/o and Gobe t'ou$'
AO,;" and AO ;,A to ;,). On 2< 0ul/ 19!:" t'e =resident
issued FO 29E entitlin$ non,2ilipino itiLens or entities to
avail of reparations1 apital $oods and servies in t'e event
of sale" lease or disposition. .'e four properties in 0apan
inludin$ t'e Roppon$i %ere spei8all/ +entioned in t'e
8rst B>'ereasC lause. A+idst opposition b/ various
setors" t'e FIeutive bran' of t'e $overn+ent 'as been
pus'in$" %it' $reat vi$or" its deision to sell t'e reparations
properties startin$ %it' t'e Roppon$i lot.
.%o petitions for pro'ibition %ere 8led see-in$ to en7oin
respondents" t'eir representatives and a$ents fro+
proeedin$ %it' t'e biddin$ for t'e sale of t'e ;"1:9 s4. +.
of land at ;*E Roppon$$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$s %'i' e@etivel/ prevent t'e
partiipation of 2ilipino itiLens and entities in t'e biddin$
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**:
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.
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 $ould #e engaged #y
the company only up to the su#stantial completion of the *"+
+espondent )itamura& through his la$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
+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
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.
+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 $as correct in applying instead the principle
of lex loci solutionis.
<. -enied petitioners M+.
Petitioners instituted the instant Petition for +evie$ on Certiorari.
,=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.
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
SC: -enied petitioners +evie$.
!n the Motion to -ismiss
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
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$ing 3uestions: '5(
,here can or should litigation #e initiatedD '6( ,hich la$ $ill the
court applyD and ';( ,here can the resulting judgment #e
Jurisdiction vs Choice of 4a$
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.
: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 $hich is the su#ject of
the litigation.
!n assailing the trial court2s jurisdiction herein& petitioners are
actua(($ 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
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
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
!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& $hether a suit should #e entertained or dismissed on the
#asis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the
particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
!n this case& the +C decided to assume jurisdiction.
hird& the propriety of dismissing a case #ased on this principle
re3uires a factual determinationF hence& this conflicts principle is
more properly considered a matter of defense.
RTC is 3ested ,$ (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***
!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.
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 $ill have to confront the
uncertainty of o#taining suita#le
employment after along period in a foreign
he compensation scheme is simply the *chool2s adaptive
measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of
attracting competent professionals in the field of international
Petitioner !*"@& in negotiations for a ne$ 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
)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
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 $hich include the employment
.'e partiesR 1992,199< C9A points us to t'e onditions and
provisions for salar/ and professional o+pensation %'erein
t'e parties a$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$reed value of s/ste+
displae+ent and ontrated status of t'e OSRS as
di@erentiated fro+ t'e tenured status of 6oall/ Reruited
Sta@ (6RS).
G. he Knion cannot also invo%e the e3ual protection clause to
justify its claim of parity.
>ON t'e s'ool1s pratie of aordin$ forei$n 'ires 'i$'er
salaries and bene8t t'an loal 'ires are validO
"C: Granted in part. Orders of )O6F Se. are reversed.
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
&argaining #nit% a group of employees of a given
employer& comprised of all or less than all of the entire #ody of
employees& consistent $ith e3uity to the employer& indicate to
#e the #est suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective #argaining provisions of the la$.
(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
GR No. 6,11:<9 Q ;E =5I6 N:2 #ar' 1E" 191: