You are on page 1of 58

U.S.

Supreme Court
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895)
Hilton v. Guyot
Nos. 130, 34
r!ue" pril 10, 1894
#e$i"e" %une 3, 1895
159 U.S. 113
Syllabus
A citizen and resident of this country who has his principal place of business here but has an agent in a foreign country and is accustomed to
purchase and store large quantities of goods there, and, in a suit brought against him by a citizen and in a court of that country, appears and
defends with the sole object of preventing his property within the jurisdiction, but not in the custody of that court, from being taken in
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered against him there cannot, in an action brought against him in this country upon such a
judgment, impeach it for want of jurisdiction of his person.
The admission at the trial in a court of a foreign country, according to its law and practice, of testimony not under oath and without
opportunity of cross-eamination, and of documents with which the defendant had no connection and which by our law would not be
admissible against him, is not of itself a sufficient ground for impeaching the judgment of that court in an action brought upon it in this
country.
!hen an action is brought in a court of this country by a citizen of a foreign country against one of our own citizens to recover a sum of
money adjudged by a court of that country to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and the foreign judgment appears to have been
rendered by a competent court, having jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties, and upon due allegations and proofs and opportunity to
defend against them, and its proceedings are according to the course of a civilized jurisprudence, and are stated in a clear and formal record,
the judgment is prima facie evidence, at least, of the truth of the matter adjudged, and the judgment is conclusive upon the merits tried in
the foreign court unless some special ground is shown for impeaching it, as by showing that it was affected by fraud or prejudice or that, by
the principles of international law and by the comity of our own country, it is not entitled to full credit and credit.
A judgment for a sum of money, rendered by a court of a foreign country, having jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties, in a suit brought
by one of its citizens against one of ours, is prima facie evidence only, and not conclusive of the merits of the claim in an action brought here
upon the judgment if by the law of the foreign country, as in "rance, judgments of our own courts are not recognized as conclusive.
The first of these two cases was an action at law, brought #ecember $%, $%%&, in the 'ircuit 'ourt of the (nited )tates for the )outhern
#istrict of *ew +ork, by ,ustave -ertin ,uyot, as official liquidator of the firm of 'harles "ortin . 'o., and by the surviving members of that
firm, all aliens and citizens of the /epublic of "rance, against 0enry 0ilton and !illiam 1ibbey, citizens of the (nited )tates and of the )tate of
*ew +ork and trading as copartners in the cities of *ew +ork and 2aris and elsewhere under the firm name of A. T. )tewart . 'o. The action
was upon a judgment recovered in a "rench court at 2aris, in the /epublic of "rance, by the firm of 'harles "ortin . 'o., all of whose
members were "rench citizens, against 0ilton . 1ibbey, trading as copartners, as aforesaid, and citizens of the (nited )tates and of the )tate
of *ew +ork.
The complaint alleged that in $%%3 and since, during the time of all the transactions included in the judgment sued on, 0ilton and 1ibbey, as
successors to Aleander T. )tewart and 1ibbey, under the firm name of A. T. )tewart . 'o., carried on a general business as merchants in the
'ities of *ew +ork and 2aris and elsewhere, and maintained a regular store and place of business at 2aris4 that during the same time, 'harles
"ortin . 'o. carried on the manufacture and sale of gloves at 2aris, and the two firms had there large dealings in that business, and
controversies arose in the adjustment of accounts between them.
The complaint further alleged that between 5arch $, $%67, and #ecember $, $%%8, five suits were brought by "ortin . 'o. against )tewart .
'o. for sums alleged to be due, and three suits by )tewart . 'o. against "ortin . 'o., in the Tribunal of 'ommerce of the #epartment of the
)eine, a judicial tribunal or court organized and eisting under the laws of "rance, sitting at 2aris and having jurisdiction of suits and
controversies between merchants or traders growing out of commercial dealings between them4 that )tewart . 'o. appeared by their
authorized attorneys in all those suits, and that, after full hearing before an arbitrator appointed by that court and before the court itself, and
after all the suits had been consolidated by the court, final judgment was rendered on 9anuary 8:, $%%;, that "ortin . 'o. recover of )tewart
. 'o. various sums, arising out of the dealings between them, amounting to 33:,%<6 francs, with interest, and dismissed part of "ortin .
'o.=s claim.
The complaint further alleged that appeals were taken by both parties from that judgment to the 'ourt of Appeal of 2aris, Third )ection, an
appellate court of record organized and eisting under the laws of the /epublic of "rance and having jurisdiction of appeals from the final
judgments of the Tribunal of 'ommerce of the #epartment of the )eine, where the amount in dispute eceeded the sum of $,&:: francs, and
that the said 'ourt of Appeal, by a final judgment rendered 5arch $7, $%%<, and remaining of record in the office of its clerk at 2aris, after
hearing the several parties by their counsel, and upon full consideration of the merits, dismissed the appeal of the defendants, confirmed the
judgment of the lower court in favor of the plaintiffs, and ordered, upon the plaintiffs= appeal, that they recover the additional sum of $&8,&8%
francs, with $%8,%<7 francs for interest on all the claims allowed, and $8,&&7 francs for costs and epenses.
The complaint further alleged that ,uyot had been duly appointed by the Tribunal of 'ommerce of the #epartment of the )eine official
liquidator of the firm of "orth . 'o., with full powers, according to law and commercial usage, for the verification and realization of its
property, both real and personal, and to collect and cause to be eecuted the judgments aforesaid.
The complaint further alleged that the judgment of the 'ourt of Appeals of 2aris, and the judgment of the Tribunal of 'ommerce, as modified
by the judgment of the appellate court, still remain in full force and effect4
>that the said courts respectively had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the controversies so submitted to them, and of the parties, the said
defendants having intervened, by their attorneys and counsel, and applied for affirmative relief in both courts4 that the plaintiffs have hitherto
been unable to collect the said judgments or any part thereof, by reason of the absence of the said defendants, they having given up their
business in 2aris prior to the recovery of the said judgment on appeal, and having left no property within the jurisdiction of the /epublic of
"rance out of which the said judgments might be made4>
and that there are still justly due and owing from the defendants to the plaintiffs upon those said judgments certain sums, specified in the
complaint, and amounting in all to $,::%,6%; francs in the currency of the /epublic of "rance, equivalent to ?$7&,$88.<6.
The defendants, in their answer, set forth in detail the original contracts and transactions in "rance between the parties and the subsequent
dealings between them modifying those contracts, and alleged that the plaintiffs had no just claim against the defendants, but that, on the
contrary, the defendants, upon a just settlement of the accounts, were entitled to recover large sums from the plaintiffs.
The answer admitted the proceedings and judgments in the "rench courts and that the defendants gave up their business in "rance before the
judgment on appeal, and had no property within the jurisdiction of "rance out of which that judgment could be collected.
The answer further alleged that the Tribunal of 'ommerce of the #epartment of the )eine was a tribunal whose judges were merchants, ship
captains, stockbrokers, and persons engaged in commercial pursuits, and of which 'harles "ortin had been a member until shortly before the
commencement of the litigation.
The answer further alleged that in the original suits brought against the defendants by "ortin . 'o., the citations were left at their storehouse
in 2aris4 that they were then residents and citizens of the )tate of *ew +ork, and neither of them at that time, or within four years before,
had been within, or resident or domiciled within, the jurisdiction of that tribunal or owed any allegiance to "rance, but that they were the
owners of property situated in that country which would by the law of "rance have been liable to seizure if they did not appear in that
tribunal, and that they unwillingly, and solely for the purpose of protecting that property, authorized and caused an agent to appear for them
in those proceedings, and that the suits brought by them against "ortin . 'o. were brought for the same purpose, and in order to make a
proper defense, and to establish counterclaims arising out of the transactions between the parties, and to compel the production and
inspection of "ortin . 'o.=s books, and that they sought no other affirmative relief in that tribunal.
The answer further alleged that, pending that litigation, the defendants discovered gross frauds in the accounts of "ourtin . 'o., that the
arbitrator and the tribunal declined to compel "ortin . 'o. to produce their books and papers for inspection, and that, if they had been
produced, the judgment would not have been obtained against the defendants.
The answer further alleged that without any fault or negligence on the part of the defendants, there was not a full and fair trial of the
controversies before the arbitrator, in that no witness was sworn or affirmed4 in that 'harles "ortin was permitted to make, and did make,
statements not under oath containing many falsehoods4 in that the privilege of cross-eamination of "ortin and other persons who made
statements before the arbitrator was denied to the defendants, and in that etracts from printed newspapers, the knowledge of which was not
brought home to the defendants, and letters and other communications in writing between "ortin . 'o. and third persons, to which the
defendants were neither privy nor party, were received by the arbitrator4 that without such improper evidence, the judgment would not have
been obtained, and that the arbitrator was deceived and misled by the false and fraudulent accounts introduced by "ortin . 'o. and by the
hearsay testimony given, without the solemnity of an oath and without cross-eamination, and by the fraudulent suppression of the books
and papers.
The answer further alleged that "ortin . 'o. made up their statements and accounts falsely and fraudulently, and with intent to deceive the
defendants and the arbitrator and the said courts of "rance, and those courts were deceived and misled thereby4 that owing to the fraudulent
suppression of the books and papers of "ortin . 'o. upon the trial and the false statements of "ortin regarding matters involved in the
controversy, the arbitrator and the courts of "rance
>were deceived and misled in regard to the merits of the controversies pending before them, and wrongfully decided against said )tewart .
'o., as hereinbefore stated4 that said judgment, hereinbefore mentioned, is fraudulent, and based upon false and fraudulent accounts and
statements, and is erroneous in fact and in law, and is void4 that the trial hereinbefore mentioned was not conducted according to the usages
and practice of the common law, and the allegations and proofs given by said "ortin . 'o., upon which said judgment is founded, would not
be competent or admissible in any court or tribunal of the (nited )tates, in any suit between the same parties involving the same subject
matter, and it is contrary to natural justice and public policy that the said judgment should be enforced against a citizen of the (nited )tates,
and that, if there had been a full and fair trial upon the merits of the controversies so pending before said tribunals, no judgment would have
been obtained against said )tewart . 'o.>
>#efendants, further answering, allege that it is contrary to natural justice that the judgment hereinbefore mentioned should be enforced
without an eamination of the merits thereof4 that by the laws of the /epublic of "rance, to-wit, article $%$ @$8$A of the /oyal Brdinance of
9une $&, $387, it is provided namelyC>
>9udgments rendered, contracts or obligations recognized, in foreign kingdoms and sovereignties, for any cause whatever shall give rise to no
lien or eecution in our Dingdom. Thus, the contracts shall stand for simple promises, and, notwithstanding such judgments, our subjects
against whom they have been rendered may contest their rights anew before our own judges.>
>And it is further provided by the laws of "rance, by article &<3 of the 'ode de 2rocedure 'ivile, as followsC>
> 9udgments rendered by foreign tribunals shall be capable of eecution in "rance only in the manner and in the cases set forth by articles
8$8; and 8$8% of the 'ivil 'ode.>
>And it is further provided by the laws of "rance, by article 8$8% @8$8;A of the 'ode de 2rocedure 'ivile @'ivil 'odeAC>
> A lien cannot, in like manner, arise from judgments rendered in any foreign country, save only as they have been declared in force by a
"rench tribunal, without prejudice, however, to provisions to the contrary, contained in public laws and treaties.>
>@And by article 8$8% of that 'odeC ='ontracts entered into in a foreign country cannot give a lien upon property in "rance if there are no
provisions contrary to this principle in public laws or in treaties.=A>
>That the construction given to said statutes by the judicial tribunals of "rance is such that no comity is displayed towards the judgments of
tribunals of foreign countries against the citizens of "rance, when sued upon in said courts of "rance, and the merits of the controversies upon
which the said judgments are based are eamined anew, unless a treaty to the contrary effect eists between the said /epublic of "rance and
the country in which such judgment is obtained. That no treaty eists between the said /epublic of "rance and the (nited )tates, by the
terms or effect of which the judgments of either country are prevented from being eamined anew upon the merits, when sued upon in the
courts of the country other than that in which it is obtained. That the tribunals of the /epublic of "rance give no force and effect, within the
jurisdiction of the said country, to the duly rendered judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction of the (nited )tates against citizens of
"rance, after proper personal service of the process of said courts is made thereon in this country.>
The answer further set up, by way of counterclaim and in detail, various matters arising out of the dealings between the parties, and alleged
that none of the plaintiffs had since $%%$ been residents of the )tate of *ew +ork, or within the jurisdiction of that state, but the defendants
were, and always had been, residents of that state.
The answer concluded by demanding that the plaintiffs= complaint be dismissed, and that the defendants have judgment against them upon
the counterclaims, amounting to ?$:8,7<8.7$.
The plaintiffs filed a replication to so much of the answer as made counterclaims, denying its allegations and setting up in bar thereof the
judgment sued on.
The defendants, on 9une 88, $%%%, filed a bill in equity against the plaintiffs setting forth the same matters as in their answer to the action at
law and praying for a discovery and for an injunction against the prosecution of the action. To that bill a plea was filed setting up the "rench
judgments, and upon a hearing, the bill was dismissed. <8 ". 8<7. "rom the decree dismissing the bill an appeal was taken, which is the
second case now before this 'ourt.
The action at law afterwards came on for trial by a jury, and the plaintiffs put in the records of the proceedings and judgments in the "rench
courts, and evidence that the jurisdiction of those courts was as alleged in the complaint and that the practice followed and the method of
eamining the witnesses were according to the "rench law, and also proved the title of ,uyot as liquidator.
Et was admitted by both parties that for several years prior to $%63, the firm of Aleander T. )tewart . 'o., composed of )tewart and 1ibbey,
conducted their business as merchants in the 'ity of *ew +ork, with branches in other cities of America and Furope4 that both partners were
citizens and residents of the 'ity and )tate of *ew +ork during the entire period mentioned in the complaint, and that in April, $%63, )tewart
died, and 0ilton and 1ibbey formed a partnership to continue the business under the same firm name, and became the owners of all the
property and rights of the old firm.
The defendants made numerous offers of evidence in support of all the specific allegations of fact in their answer, including the allegations as
to the law and comity of "rance. The plaintiffs, in their brief filed in this 'ourt, admitted that most of these offers
>were offers to prove matters in support of the defenses and counterclaims set up by the defendants in the cases tried before the "rench
courts, and which, or most of which, would have been relevant and competent if the plaintiffs in error are not concluded by the result of those
litigations, and have now the right to try those issues, either on the ground that the "rench judgments are only prima facie evidence of the
correctness of those judgments, or on the ground that the case is within the eception of a judgment obtained by fraud.>
The defendants, in order to show that they should not be concluded by having appeared and litigated in the suits brought against them by the
plaintiffs in the "rench courts, offered to prove that they were residents and citizens of the )tate of *ew +ork, and neither of them had been,
within four years prior to the commencement of those suits, domiciled or resident within the jurisdiction of those courts4 that they had a
purchasing agent and a storehouse in 2aris, but only as a means or facility to aid in the transaction of their principal business, which was in
*ew +ork, and they were never otherwise engaged in business in "rance4 that neither of them owed allegiance to "rance, but they were the
owners of property there which would, according to the laws of "rance, have been liable to seizure if they had not appeared to answer in
those suits4 that they unwillingly, and solely for the purpose of protecting their property within the jurisdiction of the "rench tribunal,
authorized an agent to appear, and he did appear in the proceedings before it, and that their motion to compel an inspection of the plaintiffs=
books, as well as the suits brought by the defendants in "rance, were necessary by way of defense or counterclaim to the suits there brought
by the plaintiffs against them.
Among the matters which the defendants alleged and offered to prove in order to show that the "rench judgments were procured by fraud
were that "ortin . 'o., with intent to deceive and defraud the defendants, and the arbitrator and the courts of "rance, entered in their books,
and presented to the defendants, and to the "rench courts, accounts bearing upon the transactions in controversy which were false and
fraudulent, and contained ecessive and fraudulent charges against the defendants in various particulars, specified4 that the defendants made
due application to the Tribunal of 'ommerce to compel "ortin . 'o. to allow their account books and letter books to be inspected by the
defendants, and the application was opposed by "ortin . 'o., and denied by the tribunal4 that the discovery and inspection of those books
were necessary to determine the truth of the controversies between the parties4 that before the Tribunal of 'ommerce, 'harles "ortin was
permitted to and did give in evidence statements not under oath relating to the merits of the controversies there pending, and falsely
represented that a certain written contract made in $%6; between )tewart . 'o. and "ortin . 'o. concerning their dealings was not intended
by the parties to be operative according to its terms, and in support of that false representation made statements as to admissions by )tewart
in a private conversation with him, and that the defendants could not deny those statements, because )tewart was dead, and they were not
protected from the effect of "ortin=s statements by the privilege of cross-eamining him under oath, and that the "rench judgments were
based upon false and fraudulent accounts presented and statements made by "ortin . 'o. before the Tribunal of 'ommerce during the trial
before it.
The records of the judgments of the "rench courts, put in evidence by the plaintiffs, showed that all the matters now relied on to show fraud
were contested in and considered by those courts.
The plaintiffs objected to all the evidence offered by the defendants on the grounds that the matters offered to be proved were irrelevant,
immaterial, and incompetent4 that in respect to them the defendants were concluded by the judgment sued on and given in evidence, and
that none of those matters, if proved, would be a defense to this action upon that judgment.
The court declined to admit any of the evidence so offered by the defendants, and directed a verdict for the plaintiffs in the sum of
?866,66&.<<, being the amount of the "rench judgment and interest. The defendants, having duly ecepted to the rulings and direction of the
court, sued out a writ of error.
The writ of error in the action at law and the appeal in the suit in equity were argued together in this 'ourt in 9anuary, $%7<, and, by direction
of the 'ourt, were reargued in April, $%7<, before a full -ench.
*****************************************
In a prior action, Guyot (plaintif), a French citizen, sued Hilton (defendant), a United States
citizen, in a French court. The French court entered jud!ent in fa"or of Guyot. Thereafter, Guyot
#rouht this action aainst Hilton upon the French jud!ent in a circuit court of the United
States in $e% &or'. The circuit court entered jud!ent for Guyot %ithout e(a!inin the !erits of
the case. Hilton appealed, aruin that the circuit court should ha"e e(a!ined the !erits.
Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction: International Comity Case: Hilton v. Guyot (1895 !"#159 !.". 11$ 1% ".Ct. 1$9 &' (.)d. 95"ummary:
* case decided +y t,e !nited "tates "u-reme Court in .,ic, t,e court descri+ed t,e factors to +e used .,en considering t,e a--lication
of comity. /o la. ,as any effect +eyond t,e limits of t,e sovereignty from .,ic, its aut,ority is derived. 0,e e1tent to .,ic, one nation s,all
+e allo.ed to o-erate .it,in t,e dominion of anot,er nation de-ends u-on t,e 2comity of nations.22Comity2 3 neit,er a matter of a+solute
o+ligation nor of mere courtesy and good .ill. It is a recognition .,ic, one nation allo.s .it,in its territory to t,e legislative e1ecutive or
4udicial acts of anot,er nation ,aving due regard +ot, to int5l duty and convenience and to t,e rig,ts of its o.n citi6ens or ot,er -ersons
.,o are under t,e -rotection of its la.s. 20,e comity t,us e1tended to ot,er nations is no im-eac,ment of sovereignty. It is t,e voluntary act
of t,e nation +y .,ic, it is offered and is inadmissi+le .,en contrary to its -olicy or -re4udicial to its interests. 7ut it contri+utes so largely to
-romote 4ustice +et.een individuals and to -roduce a friendly intercourse +t.n t,e sovereignty to .,ic, t,ey +elong t,at courts of 4ustice
,ave continually acted u-on it as a -art of t,e voluntary la. of nations.2 2It is not t,e comity of t,e courts +ut t,e comity of t,e nation .,ic,
is administered and ascertained in t,e same .ay and guided +y t,e same reasoning +y .,ic, all ot,er -rinci-les of munici-al la. are
ascertained and guided.2
[G.R. No. 122191. October 8, 1998]
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ILAGROS P. ORADA !"# $ON. RODOLFO A.
ORTI%, &" '&( c!)!c&t* !( Pre(&#&"+ ,-#+e o. Br!"c' 89, Re+&o"!/ Tr&!/ Co-rt o. 0-e1o" C&t*,
respondents.
D E C I S I O N
0UISUBING, J.2
0,is -etition for certiorari -ursuant to Rule &5 of t,e Rules of Court see8s to annul and set aside t,e Resolution
dated "e-tem+er 9: 1995 and t,e ;ecision dated *-ril 1' 199% of t,e Court of *--eals in C*3G.R. "< /o. $%5$$ and
t,e =rders dated *ugust 99 199& and >e+ruary 9 1995 t,at .ere issued +y t,e trial court in Civil Case /o. ?39$318$9&.
0,e -ertinent antecedent facts .,ic, gave rise to t,e instant -etition as stated in t,e @uestioned ;ecision are as
follo.s:
A=n January 91 1988 defendant "*!;I* ,ired -laintiff as a >lig,t *ttendant for its airlines +ased in
Jedda, "audi *ra+ia. 1 1 1
=n *-ril 9: 199' .,ile on a lay3over in Ja8arta Indonesia -laintiff .ent to a disco dance .it, fello. cre.
mem+ers 0,amer *l3Ga66a.i and *lla, *l3Ga66a.i +ot, "audi nationals. 7ecause it .as almost morning .,en
t,ey returned to t,eir ,otels t,ey agreed to ,ave +rea8fast toget,er at t,e room of 0,amer. B,en t,ey .ere in
t,e (sic# room *lla, left on some -rete1t. ",ortly after ,e did 0,amer attem-ted to ra-e -laintiff. >ortunately a
room+oy and several security -ersonnel ,eard ,er cries for ,el- and rescued ,er. (ater t,e Indonesian -olice
came and arrested 0,amer and *lla, *l3Ga66a.i t,e latter as an accom-lice.
B,en -laintiff returned to Jedda, a fe. days later several "*!;I* officials interrogated ,er a+out t,e
Ja8arta incident. 0,ey t,en re@uested ,er to go +ac8 to Ja8arta to ,el- arrange t,e release of 0,amer and
*lla,. In Ja8arta "*!;I* (egal =fficer "ira, *88ad and +ase manager 7a,arini negotiated .it, t,e -olice for
t,e immediate release of t,e detained cre. mem+ers +ut did not succeed +ecause -laintiff refused to coo-erate.
",e .as afraid t,at s,e mig,t +e tric8ed into somet,ing s,e did not .ant +ecause of ,er ina+ility to understand
t,e local dialect. ",e also declined to sign a +lan8 -a-er and a document .ritten in t,e local dialect. )ventually
"*!;I* allo.ed -laintiff to return to Jedda, +ut +arred ,er from t,e Ja8arta flig,ts.
<laintiff learned t,at t,roug, t,e intercession of t,e "audi *ra+ian government t,e Indonesian aut,orities
agreed to de-ort 0,amer and *lla, after t.o .ee8s of detention. )ventually t,ey .ere again -ut in service +y
defendant "*!;I (sic#. In "e-tem+er 199' defendant "*!;I* transferred -laintiff to Canila.
=n January 1& 1999 4ust .,en -laintiff t,oug,t t,at t,e Ja8arta incident .as already +e,ind ,er ,er
su-eriors re@uested ,er to see Cr. *li Cenie.y C,ief (egal =fficer of "*!;I* in Jedda, "audi *ra+ia. B,en
s,e sa. ,im ,e +roug,t ,er to t,e -olice station .,ere t,e -olice too8 ,er -ass-ort and @uestioned ,er a+out
t,e Ja8arta incident. Cinie.y sim-ly stood +y as t,e -olice -ut -ressure on ,er to ma8e a statement dro--ing
t,e case against 0,amer and *lla,. /ot until s,e agreed to do so did t,e -olice return ,er -ass-ort and allo.ed
,er to catc, t,e afternoon flig,t out of Jedda,.
=ne year and a ,alf later or on June 1% 199$ in Riyad, "audi *ra+ia a fe. minutes +efore t,e de-arture
of ,er flig,t to Canila -laintiff .as not allo.ed to +oard t,e -lane and instead ordered to ta8e a later flig,t to
Jedda, to see Cr. Cinie.y t,e C,ief (egal =fficer of "*!;I*. B,en s,e did a certain D,alid of t,e "*!;I*
office +roug,t ,er to a "audi court .,ere s,e .as as8ed to sign a document .ritten in *ra+ic. 0,ey told ,er t,at
t,is .as necessary to close t,e case against 0,amer and *lla,. *s it turned out -laintiff signed a notice to ,er
to a--ear +efore t,e court on June 9: 199$. <laintiff t,en returned to Canila.
",ortly after.ards defendant "*!;I* summoned -laintiff to re-ort to Jedda, once again and see Cinie.y
on June 9: 199$ for furt,er investigation. <laintiff did so after receiving assurance from "*!;I*Es Canila
manager *slam "aleemi t,at t,e investigation .as routinary and t,at it -osed no danger to ,er.
In Jedda, a "*!;I* legal officer +roug,t -laintiff to t,e same "audi court on June 9: 199$. /ot,ing
,a--ened t,en +ut on June 98 199$ a "audi 4udge interrogated -laintiff t,roug, an inter-reter a+out t,e
Ja8arta incident. *fter one ,our of interrogation t,ey let ,er go. *t t,e air-ort ,o.ever 4ust as ,er -lane .as
a+out to ta8e off a "*!;I* officer told ,er t,at t,e airline ,ad for+idden ,er to ta8e flig,t. *t t,e Inflig,t "ervice
=ffice .,ere s,e .as told to go t,e secretary of Cr. Fa,ya "addic8 too8 a.ay ,er -ass-ort and told ,er to
remain in Jedda, at t,e cre. @uarters until furt,er orders.
=n July $ 199$ a "*!;I* legal officer again escorted -laintiff to t,e same court .,ere t,e 4udge to ,er
astonis,ment and s,oc8 rendered a decision translated to ,er in )nglis, sentencing ,er to five mont,s
im-risonment and to 98% las,es. =nly t,en did s,e reali6e t,at t,e "audi court ,ad tried ,er toget,er .it,
0,amer and *lla, for .,at ,a--ened in Ja8arta. 0,e court found -laintiff guilty of (1# adulteryG (9# going to a
disco dancing and listening to t,e music in violation of Islamic la.sG and ($# sociali6ing .it, t,e male cre. in
contravention of Islamic tradition.H
>acing conviction -rivate res-ondent soug,t t,e ,el- of ,er em-loyer -etitioner "*!;I*. !nfortunately s,e .as
denied any assistance. ",e t,en as8ed t,e <,ili--ine )m+assy in Jedda, to ,el- ,er .,ile ,er case is on a--eal.
Cean.,ile to -ay for ,er u-8ee- s,e .or8ed on t,e domestic flig,t of "*!;I* .,ile 0,amer and *lla, continued to
serve in t,e international flig,ts.
7ecause s,e .as .rongfully convicted t,e <rince of Ca88a, dismissed t,e case against ,er and allo.ed ,er to
leave "audi *ra+ia. ",ortly +efore ,er return to Canila s,e .as terminated from t,e service +y "*!;I* .it,out ,er
+eing informed of t,e cause.
=n /ovem+er 9$ 199$ Corada filed a Com-laint
i
for damages against "*!;I* and D,aled *l37ala.i (A*l3
7ala.iH# its country manager.
=n January 19 199& "*!;I* filed an =mni+us Cotion 0o ;ismiss .,ic, raised t,e follo.ing grounds to .it: (1#
t,at t,e Com-laint states no cause of action against "audiaG (9# t,at defendant *l37ala.i is not a real -arty in interestG ($#
t,at t,e claim or demand set fort, in t,e Com-laint ,as +een .aived a+andoned or ot,er.ise e1tinguis,edG and (&# t,at
t,e trial court ,as no 4urisdiction to try t,e case.
=n >e+ruary 1' 199& Corada filed ,er =--osition (0o Cotion to ;ismiss# "audia filed a re-ly t,ereto on Carc, $
199&.
=n June 9$ 199& Corada filed an *mended Com-laint .,erein *l37ala.i .as dro--ed as -arty defendant. =n
*ugust 11 199& "audia filed its Canifestation and Cotion to ;ismiss *mended Com-laint.
0,e trial court issued an =rder dated *ugust 99 199& denying t,e Cotion to ;ismiss *mended Com-laint filed +y
"audia.
>rom t,e =rder of res-ondent Judge denying t,e Cotion to ;ismiss "*!;I* filed on "e-tem+er 9' 199& its Cotion
for Reconsideration of t,e =rder dated *ugust 99 199&. It alleged t,at t,e trial court ,as no 4urisdiction to ,ear and try
t,e case on t,e +asis of *rticle 91 of t,e Civil Code since t,e -ro-er la. a--lica+le is t,e la. of t,e Dingdom of "audi
*ra+ia. =n =cto+er 1& 199& Corada filed ,er =--osition (0o ;efendantEs Cotion for Reconsideration#.
In t,e Re-ly filed .it, t,e trial court on =cto+er 9& 199& "*!;I* alleged t,at since its Cotion for Reconsideration
raised lac8 of 4urisdiction as its cause of action t,e =mni+us Cotion Rule does not a--ly even if t,at ground is raised for
t,e first time on a--eal. *dditionally "*!;I* alleged t,at t,e <,ili--ines does not ,ave any su+stantial interest in t,e
-rosecution of t,e instant case and ,ence .it,out 4urisdiction to ad4udicate t,e same.
Res-ondent Judge su+se@uently issued anot,er =rder dated >e+ruary 9 1995 denying "*!;I*Es Cotion for
Reconsideration. 0,e -ertinent -ortion of t,e assailed =rder reads as follo.s:
A*cting on t,e Cotion for Reconsideration of defendant "audi *ra+ian *irlines filed t,ru counsel on
"e-tem+er 9' 199& and t,e =--osition t,ereto of t,e -laintiff filed t,ru counsel on =cto+er 1& 199& as .ell
as t,e Re-ly t,ere.it, of defendant "audi *ra+ian *irlines filed t,ru counsel on =cto+er 9& 199& considering
t,at a -erusal of t,e -laintiffEs *mended Com-laint .,ic, is one for t,e recovery of actual moral and
e1em-lary damages -lus attorneyEs fees u-on t,e +asis of t,e a--lica+le <,ili--ine la. *rticle 91 of t,e /e.
Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines is clearly .it,in t,e 4urisdiction of t,is Court as regards t,e su+4ect matter and
t,ere +eing not,ing ne. of su+stance .,ic, mig,t cause t,e reversal or modification of t,e order soug,t to +e
reconsidered t,e motion for reconsideration of t,e defendant is ;)/I);.
"= =R;)R);.H
Conse@uently on >e+ruary 9' 1995 "*!;I* filed its <etition for Certiorari and <ro,i+ition .it, <rayer for Issuance
of Brit of <reliminary In4unction andIor 0em-orary Restraining =rder .it, t,e Court of *--eals.
Res-ondent Court of *--eals -romulgated a Resolution .it, 0em-orary Restraining =rder dated >e+ruary 9$ 1995
-ro,i+iting t,e res-ondent Judge from furt,er conducting any -roceeding unless ot,er.ise directed in t,e interim.
In anot,er Resolution -romulgated on "e-tem+er 9: 1995 no. assailed t,e a--ellate court denied "*!;I*Es
<etition for t,e Issuance of a Brit of <reliminary In4unction dated >e+ruary 18 1995 to .it:
A0,e <etition for t,e Issuance of a Brit of <reliminary In4unction is ,ere+y ;)/I); after considering t,e
*ns.er .it, <rayer to ;eny Brit of <reliminary In4unction (Rollo -. 1$5# t,e Re-ly and Re4oinder it a--earing
t,at ,erein -etitioner is not clearly entitled t,ereto (!nciano <aramedical College et. Al., v. Court of *--eals et.
Al. 1''$$5 *-ril : 199$ "econd ;ivision#.
"= =R;)R);.H
=n =cto+er 9' 1995 "*!;I* filed .it, t,is Honora+le Court t,e instant <etition for Revie. .it, <rayer for
0em-orary Restraining =rder dated =cto+er 1$ 1995.
Ho.ever during t,e -endency of t,e instant <etition res-ondent Court of *--eals rendered t,e ;ecision dated *-ril
1' 199% no. also assailed. It ruled t,at t,e <,ili--ines is an a--ro-riate forum considering t,at t,e *mended
Com-laintEs +asis for recovery of damages is *rticle 91 of t,e Civil Code and t,us clearly .it,in t,e 4urisdiction of
res-ondent Court. It furt,er ,eld t,at certiorari is not t,e -ro-er remedy in a denial of a Cotion to ;ismiss inasmuc, as
t,e -etitioner s,ould ,ave -roceeded to trial and in case of an adverse ruling find recourse in an a--eal.
=n Cay : 199% "*!;I* filed its "u--lemental <etition for Revie. .it, <rayer for 0em-orary Restraining =rder
dated *-ril $' 199% given due course +y t,is Court. *fter +ot, -arties su+mitted t,eir Cemoranda t,e instant case is
no. deemed su+mitted for decision.
<etitioner "*!;I* raised t,e follo.ing issues:
3I
0,e trial court ,as no 4urisdiction to ,ear and try Civil Case /o. ?39$318$9& +ased on *rticle 91 of t,e /e. Civil
Code since t,e -ro-er la. a--lica+le is t,e la. of t,e Dingdom of "audi *ra+ia inasmuc, as t,is case involves
.,at is 8no.n in -rivate international la. as a Jconflicts -ro+lemE. =t,er.ise t,e Re-u+lic of t,e <,ili--ines .ill
sit in 4udgment of t,e acts done +y anot,er sovereign state .,ic, is a+,orred.
II.
(eave of court +efore filing a su--lemental -leading is not a 4urisdictional re@uirement. 7esides t,e matter as to
a+sence of leave of court is no. moot and academic .,en t,is Honora+le Court re@uired t,e res-ondents to
comment on -etitionerEs *-ril $' 199% "u--lemental <etition >or Revie. Bit, <rayer >or * 0em-orary
Restraining =rder Bit,in 0en (1'# ;ays >rom /otice 0,ereof. >urt,er t,e Revised Rules of Court s,ould +e
construed .it, li+erality -ursuant to "ection 9 Rule 1 t,ereof.
III.
<etitioner received on *-ril 99 199% t,e *-ril 1' 199% decision in C*3G.R. "< /=. $%5$$ entitled J"audi
*ra+ian *irlines v. Hon. Rodolfo *. =rti6 et al.E and filed its *-ril $' 199% "u--lemental <etition >or Revie.
Bit, <rayer >or * 0em-orary Restraining =rder on Cay : 199% at 1':99 a.m. or .it,in t,e 153day reglamentary
-eriod as -rovided for under "ection 1 Rule &5 of t,e Revised Rules of Court. 0,erefore t,e decision in C*3
G.R. "< /=. $%5$$ ,as not yet +ecome final and e1ecutory and t,is Honora+le Court can ta8e cogni6ance of
t,is case.H
>rom t,e foregoing factual and -rocedural antecedents t,e follo.ing issues emerge for our resolution:
I.
BH)0H)R R)"<=/;)/0 *<<)((*0) C=!R0 )RR); I/ H=(;I/G 0H*0 0H) R)GI=/*( 0RI*(
C=!R0 => ?!)K=/ CI0F H*" J!RI";IC0I=/ 0= H)*R */; 0RF CILI( C*") /=. ?39$318$9&
)/0I0(); ACI(*GR=" <. C=R*;* L. "*!;I *R*7I*/ *IR(I/)".H
II.
BH)0H)R R)"<=/;)/0 *<<)((*0) C=!R0 )RR); I/ R!(I/G 0H*0 I/ 0H) C*") <HI(I<<I/)
(*B "H=!(; G=L)R/.
<etitioner "*!;I* claims t,at +efore us is a conflict of la.s t,at must +e settled at t,e outset. It maintains t,at
-rivate res-ondentEs claim for alleged a+use of rig,ts occurred in t,e Dingdom of "audi *ra+ia. It alleges t,at t,e
e1istence of a foreign element @ualifies t,e instant case for t,e a--lication of t,e la. of t,e Dingdom of "audi *ra+ia +y
virtue of t,e lex loci delicti commissi rule.
=n t,e ot,er ,and -rivate res-ondent contends t,at since ,er *mended Com-laint is +ased on *rticles 19 and 91 of
t,e Civil Code t,en t,e instant case is -ro-erly a matter of domestic la..
!nder t,e factual antecedents o+taining in t,is case t,ere is no dis-ute t,at t,e inter-lay of events occurred in t.o
states t,e <,ili--ines and "audi *ra+ia.
*s stated +y -rivate res-ondent in ,er *mended Com-laint dated June 9$ 199&:
A9. ;efendant "*!;I *R*7I*/ *IR(I/)" or "*!;I* is a foreign airlines cor-oration doing +usiness in
t,e <,ili--ines. It may +e served .it, summons and ot,er court -rocesses at 0ravel Bide *ssociated "ales
(<,ils.# Inc. $
rd
>loor Cougar 7uilding 11& Lalero "t. "alcedo Lillage Ca8ati Cetro Canila.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
%. <laintiff learned t,at t,roug, t,e intercession of t,e "audi *ra+ian government t,e Indonesian
aut,orities agreed to de-ort 0,amer and *lla, after t.o .ee8s of detention. )ventually t,ey .ere again -ut in
service +y defendant "*!;I*. In "e-tem+er 199' defendant "*!;I* transferred -laintiff to Canila.
:. =n January 1& 1999 4ust .,en -laintiff t,oug,t t,at t,e Ja8arta incident .as already +e,ind ,er
,er su-eriors re@uested ,er to see CR. *li Cenie.y C,ief (egal =fficer of "*!;I* in Jedda, "audi *ra+ia.
B,en s,e sa. ,im ,e +roug,t ,er to t,e -olice station .,ere t,e -olice too8 ,er -ass-ort and @uestioned ,er
a+out t,e Ja8arta incident. Cinie.y sim-ly stood +y as t,e -olice -ut -ressure on ,er to ma8e a statement
dro--ing t,e case against 0,amer and *lla,. /ot until s,e agreed to do so did t,e -olice return ,er -ass-ort
and allo.ed ,er to catc, t,e afternoon flig,t out of Jedda,.
8. =ne year and a ,alf later or on June 1% 199$ in Riyad, "audi *ra+ia a fe. minutes +efore t,e
de-arture of ,er flig,t to Canila -laintiff .as not allo.ed to +oard t,e -lane and instead ordered to ta8e a later
flig,t to Jedda, to see Cr. Cenie.y t,e C,ief (egal =fficer of "*!;I*. B,en s,e did a certain D,alid of t,e
"*!;I* office +roug,t ,er to a "audi court .,ere s,e .as as8ed to sign a document .ritten in *ra+ic. 0,ey
told ,er t,at t,is .as necessary to close t,e case against 0,amer and *lla,. *s it turned out -laintiff signed a
notice to ,er to a--ear +efore t,e court on June 9: 199$. <laintiff t,en returned to Canila.
9. ",ortly after.ards defendant "*!;I* summoned -laintiff to re-ort to Jedda, once again and see
Cinie.y on June 9: 199$ for furt,er investigation. <laintiff did so after receiving assurance from "*!;I*Es
Canila manager *slam "aleemi t,at t,e investigation .as routinary and t,at it -osed no danger to ,er.
1'. In Jedda, a "*!;I* legal officer +roug,t -laintiff to t,e same "audi court on June 9: 199$.
/ot,ing ,a--ened t,en +ut on June 98 199$ a "audi 4udge interrogated -laintiff t,roug, an inter-reter a+out
t,e Ja8arta incident. *fter one ,our of interrogation t,ey let ,er go. *t t,e air-ort ,o.ever 4ust as ,er -lane
.as a+out to ta8e off a "*!;I* officer told ,er t,at t,e airline ,ad for+idden ,er to ta8e t,at flig,t. *t t,e
Inflig,t "ervice =ffice .,ere s,e .as told to go t,e secretary of Cr. Fa,ya "addic8 too8 a.ay ,er -ass-ort and
told ,er to remain in Jedda, at t,e cre. @uarters until furt,er orders.
11. =n July $ 199$ a "*!;I* legal officer again escorted -laintiff to t,e same court .,ere t,e 4udge to
,er astonis,ment and s,oc8 rendered a decision translated to ,er in )nglis, sentencing ,er to five mont,s
im-risonment and to 98% las,es. =nly t,en did s,e reali6e t,at t,e "audi court ,ad tried ,er toget,er .it,
0,amer and *lla, for .,at ,a--ened in Ja8arta. 0,e court found -laintiff guilty of (1# adulteryG (9# going to a
disco dancing and listening to t,e music in violation of Islamic la.sG ($# sociali6ing .it, t,e male cre. in
contravention of Islamic tradition.
19. 7ecause "*!;I* refused to lend ,er a ,and in t,e case -laintiff soug,t t,e ,el- of t,e <,ili--ine
)m+assy in Jedda,. 0,e latter ,el-ed ,er -ursue an a--eal from t,e decision of t,e court. 0o -ay for ,er
u-8ee- s,e .or8ed on t,e domestic flig,ts of defendant "*!;I* .,ile ironically 0,amer and *lla, freely
served t,e international flig,ts.H
ii
B,ere t,e factual antecedents satisfactorily esta+lis, t,e e1istence of a foreign element .e agree .it, -etitioner
t,at t,e -ro+lem ,erein could -resent a AconflictsH case.
* factual situation t,at cuts across territorial lines and is affected +y t,e diverse la.s of t.o or more states is said to
contain a Aforeign elementH. 0,e -resence of a foreign element is inevita+le since social and economic affairs of
individuals and associations are rarely confined to t,e geogra-,ic limits of t,eir +irt, or conce-tion.
iii
0,e forms in .,ic, t,is foreign element may a--ear are many.
iv
0,e foreign element may sim-ly consist in t,e fact
t,at one of t,e -arties to a contract is an alien or ,as a foreign domicile or t,at a contract +et.een nationals of one "tate
involves -ro-erties situated in anot,er "tate. In ot,er cases t,e foreign element may assume a com-le1 form.
v
In t,e instant case t,e foreign element consisted in t,e fact t,at -rivate res-ondent Corada is a resident <,ili--ine
national and t,at -etitioner "*!;I* is a resident foreign cor-oration. *lso +y virtue of t,e em-loyment of Corada .it,
t,e -etitioner "audia as a flig,t ste.ardess events did trans-ire during ,er many occasions of travel across national
+orders -articularly from Canila <,ili--ines to Jedda, "audi *ra+ia and vice versa t,at caused a AconflictsH situation to
arise.
Be t,us find -rivate res-ondentEs assertion t,at t,e case is -urely domestic im-recise. * conflicts -ro+lem -resents
itself ,ere and t,e @uestion of 4urisdiction
vi
confronts t,e court a quo.
*fter a careful study of t,e -rivate res-ondentEs *mended Com-laint
vii
and t,e Comment t,ereon .e note t,at s,e
a-tly -redicated ,er cause of action on *rticles 19 and 91 of t,e /e. Civil Code.
=n one ,and *rticle 19 of t,e /e. Civil Code -rovidesG
A*rt. 19. )very -erson must in t,e e1ercise of ,is rig,ts and in t,e -erformance of ,is duties act .it,
4ustice give everyone ,is due and o+serve ,onesty and good fait,.H
=n t,e ot,er ,and *rticle 91 of t,e /e. Civil Code -rovides:
A*rt. 91. *ny -erson .,o .illfully causes loss or in4ury to anot,er in a manner t,at is contrary to morals
good customs or -u+lic -olicy s,all com-ensate t,e latter for damages.H
0,us in Philippine National Bank (PNB) vs. Court of Appeals
viii
t,is Court ,eld t,at:
A0,e aforecited -rovisions on ,uman relations .ere intended to e1-and t,e conce-t of torts in t,is
4urisdiction +y granting ade@uate legal remedy for t,e untold num+er of moral .rongs .,ic, is im-ossi+le for
,uman foresig,t to s-ecifically -rovide in t,e statutes.H
*lt,oug, *rticle 19 merely declares a -rinci-le of la. *rticle 91 gives fles, to its -rovisions. 0,us .e agree .it,
-rivate res-ondentEs assertion t,at violations of *rticles 19 and 91 are actiona+le .it, 4udicially enforcea+le remedies in
t,e munici-al forum.
7ased on t,e allegations
i1
in t,e *mended Com-laint read in t,e lig,t of t,e Rules of Court on 4urisdiction
1
.e find
t,at t,e Regional 0rial Court (R0C# of ?ue6on City -ossesses 4urisdiction over t,e su+4ect matter of t,e suit.
1i
Its aut,ority
to try and ,ear t,e case is -rovided for under "ection 1 of Re-u+lic *ct /o. :%91 to .it:
A"ection 1. "ection 19 of 7atas <am+ansa 7lg. 199 ot,er.ise 8no.n as t,e AJudiciary Reorgani6ation *ct
of 198'H is ,ere+y amended to read as follo.s:
")C. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. M Regional 0rial Courts s,all e1ercise e1clusive 4urisdiction:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(8# In all ot,er cases in .,ic, demand e1clusive of interest damages of .,atever
8ind attorneyEs fees litigation e1-enses and costs or t,e value of t,e -ro-erty in
controversy e1ceeds =ne ,undred t,ousand -esos (<1'''''.''# or in suc, ot,er cases in
Cetro Canila .,ere t,e demand e1clusive of t,e a+ove3mentioned items e1ceeds 0.o
,undred 0,ousand -esos (<9'''''.''#. ()m-,asis ours#
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
*nd follo.ing "ection 9 (+# Rule & of t,e Revised Rules of CourtNt,e venue ?ue6on City is a--ro-riate:
A")C. 9 Lenue in Courts of >irst Instance. MO/o. Regional 0rial CourtP
(a# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(+# <ersonal actions. M *ll ot,er actions may +e commenced and tried .,ere t,e defendant or any of t,e
defendants resides or may +e found or .,ere t,e -laintiff or any of t,e -laintiff resides at t,e election of t,e
-laintiff.H
<ragmatic considerations including t,e convenience of t,e -arties also .eig, ,eavily in favor of t,e R0C ?ue6on
City assuming 4urisdiction. <aramount is t,e -rivate interest of t,e litigant. )nforcea+ility of a 4udgment if one is o+tained
is @uite o+vious. Relative advantages and o+stacles to a fair trial are e@ually im-ortant. <laintiff may not +y c,oice of an
inconvenient forum Jve1E J,arassE or Jo--ressE t,e defendant e.g. +y inflicting u-on ,im needless e1-ense or
distur+ance. 7ut unless t,e +alance is strongly in favor of t,e defendant t,e -laintiffEs c,oice of forum s,ould rarely +e
distur+ed.
1ii
Beig,ing t,e relative claims of t,e -arties t,e court a quo found it +est to ,ear t,e case in t,e <,ili--ines. Had it
refused to ta8e cogni6ance of t,e case it .ould +e forcing -laintiff (-rivate res-ondent no.# to see8 remedial action
else.,ere i.e. in t,e Dingdom of "audi *ra+ia .,ere s,e no longer maintains su+stantial connections. 0,at .ould ,ave
caused a fundamental unfairness to ,er.
Coreover +y ,earing t,e case in t,e <,ili--ines no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience ,ave +een s,o.n +y
eit,er of t,e -arties. 0,e c,oice of forum of t,e -laintiff (no. -rivate res-ondent# s,ould +e u-,eld.
"imilarly t,e trial court also -ossesses 4urisdiction over t,e -ersons of t,e -arties ,erein. 7y filing ,er Com-laint and
*mended Com-laint .it, t,e trial court -rivate res-ondent ,as voluntary su+mitted ,erself to t,e 4urisdiction of t,e court.
0,e records s,o. t,at -etitioner "*!;I* ,as filed several motions
1iii
-raying for t,e dismissal of CoradaEs *mended
Com-laint. "*!;I* also filed an *ns.er In x A!undante Cautelam dated >e+ruary 9' 1995. B,at is very -atent and
e1-licit from t,e motions filed is t,at "*!;I* -rayed for ot,er reliefs under t,e -remises. !ndenia+ly -etitioner "*!;I*
,as effectively su+mitted to t,e trial courtEs 4urisdiction +y -raying for t,e dismissal of t,e *mended Com-laint on grounds
ot,er t,an lac8 of 4urisdiction.
*s ,eld +y t,is Court in Repu!lic vs. "er and Compan#, $td.:
1iv
ABe o+serve t,at t,e motion to dismiss filed on *-ril 1& 19%9 aside from dis-uting t,e lo.er courtEs
4urisdiction over defendantEs -erson -rayed for dismissal of t,e com-laint on t,e ground t,at -laintiffEs cause of
action ,as -rescri+ed. 7y inter-osing suc, second ground in its motion to dismiss Der and Co. (td. availed of
an affirmative defense on t,e +asis of .,ic, it -rayed t,e court to resolve controversy in its favor. >or t,e court
to validly decide t,e said -lea of defendant Der Q Co. (td. it necessarily ,ad to ac@uire 4urisdiction u-on t,e
latterEs -erson .,o +eing t,e -ro-onent of t,e affirmative defense s,ould +e deemed to ,ave a+andoned its
s-ecial a--earance and voluntarily su+mitted itself to t,e 4urisdiction of t,e court.H
"imilarly t,e case of %e &id'el# vs. (erandos ,eld t,at:
AB,en t,e a--earance is +y motion for t,e -ur-ose of o+4ecting to t,e 4urisdiction of t,e court over t,e
-erson it must +e for t,e sole and se-arate -ur-ose of o+4ecting to t,e 4urisdiction of t,e court. If ,is motion is
for any ot,er -ur-ose t,an to o+4ect to t,e 4urisdiction of t,e court over ,is -erson ,e t,ere+y su+mits ,imself
to t,e 4urisdiction of t,e court. * s-ecial a--earance +y motion made for t,e -ur-ose of o+4ecting to t,e
4urisdiction of t,e court over t,e -erson .ill +e ,eld to +e a general a--earance if t,e -arty in said motion
s,ould for e1am-le as8 for a dismissal of t,e action u-on t,e furt,er ground t,at t,e court ,ad no 4urisdiction
over t,e su+4ect matter.H
1v
Clearly -etitioner ,ad su+mitted to t,e 4urisdiction of t,e Regional 0rial Court of ?ue6on City. 0,us .e find t,at t,e
trial court ,as 4urisdiction over t,e case and t,at its e1ercise t,ereof 4ustified.
*s to t,e c,oice of a--lica+le la. .e note t,at c,oice3of3la. -ro+lems see8 to ans.er t.o im-ortant @uestions: (1#
B,at legal system s,ould control a given situation .,ere some of t,e significant facts occurred in t.o or more statesG and
(9# to .,at e1tent s,ould t,e c,osen legal system regulate t,e situation.
1vi
"everal t,eories ,ave +een -ro-ounded in order to identify t,e legal system t,at s,ould ultimately control. *lt,oug,
ideally all c,oice3of3la. t,eories s,ould intrinsically advance +ot, notions of 4ustice and -redicta+ility t,ey do not al.ays
do so. 0,e forum is t,en faced .it, t,e -ro+lem of deciding .,ic, of t,ese t.o im-ortant values s,ould +e stressed.
1vii
7efore a c,oice can +e made it is necessary for us to determine under .,at category a certain set of facts or rules
fall. 0,is -rocess is 8no.n as Ac,aracteri6ationH or t,e Adoctrine of @ualificationH. It is t,e A-rocess of deciding .,et,er or
not t,e facts relate to t,e 8ind of @uestion s-ecified in a conflicts rule.H
1viii
0,e -ur-ose of Ac,aracteri6ationH is to ena+le
t,e forum to select t,e -ro-er la..
1i1
=ur starting -oint of analysis ,ere is not a legal relation +ut a factual situation event or o-erative fact.
11
*n essential
element of conflict rules is t,e indication of a AtestH or Aconnecting factorH or A-oint of contactH. C,oice3of3la. rules
invaria+ly consist of a factual relations,i- (suc, as -ro-erty rig,t contract claim# and a connecting factor or -oint of
contact suc, as t,e situs of t,e res t,e -lace of cele+ration t,e -lace of -erformance or t,e -lace of .rongdoing.
11i
/ote t,at one or more circumstances may +e -resent to serve as t,e -ossi+le test for t,e determination of t,e
a--lica+le la..
11ii
0,ese Atest factorsH or A-oints of contactH or Aconnecting factorsH could +e any of t,e follo.ing:
A(1# 0,e nationality of a -erson ,is domicile ,is residence ,is -lace of so4ourn or ,is originG
(9# t,e seat of a legal or 4uridical -erson suc, as a cor-orationG
($# t,e situs of a t,ing t,at is t,e -lace .,ere a t,ing is or is deemed to +e situated. In -articular t,e lex
situs is decisive .,en real rig,ts are involvedG
(&# t'e )/!ce 4'ere !" !ct '!( bee" #o"e, t'e locus actus , (-c' !( t'e )/!ce 4'ere ! co"tr!ct '!(
bee" 5!#e, ! 5!rr&!+e ce/ebr!te#, ! 4&// (&+"e# or ! tort co55&tte#. T'e lex loci actus &( )!rt&c-/!r/*
&5)ort!"t &" co"tr!ct( !"# tort(6
(5# t,e -lace .,ere an act is intended to come into effect e.g. t,e -lace of -erformance of contractual
duties or t,e -lace .,ere a -o.er of attorney is to +e e1ercisedG
(%# t,e intention of t,e contracting -arties as to t,e la. t,at s,ould govern t,eir agreement t,e lex loci
intentionisG
(:# t,e -lace .,ere 4udicial or administrative -roceedings are instituted or done. 0,e lex foriNt,e la. of
t,e forumNis -articularly im-ortant +ecause as .e ,ave seen earlier matters of J-rocedureE not going to t,e
su+stance of t,e claim involved are governed +y itG and +ecause t,e lex fori a--lies .,enever t,e content of t,e
ot,er.ise a--lica+le foreign la. is e1cluded from a--lication in a given case for t,e reason t,at it falls under
one of t,e e1ce-tions to t,e a--lications of foreign la.G and
(8# t,e flag of a s,i- .,ic, in many cases is decisive of -ractically all legal relations,i-s of t,e s,i- and of
its master or o.ner as suc,. It also covers contractual relations,i-s -articularly contracts of affreig,tment.H
11iii
(!nderscoring ours.#
*fter a careful study of t,e -leadings on record including allegations in t,e *mended Com-laint deemed su+mitted
for -ur-oses of t,e motion to dismiss .e are convinced t,at t,ere is reasona+le +asis for -rivate res-ondentEs assertion
t,at alt,oug, s,e .as already .or8ing in Canila -etitioner +roug,t ,er to Jedda, on t,e -retense t,at s,e .ould merely
testify in an investigation of t,e c,arges s,e made against t,e t.o "*!;I* cre. mem+ers for t,e attac8 on ,er -erson
.,ile t,ey .ere in Ja8arta. *s it turned out s,e .as t,e one made to face trial for very serious c,arges including
adultery and violation of Islamic la.s and tradition.
0,ere is li8e.ise logical +asis on record for t,e claim t,at t,e A,anding overH or Aturning overH of t,e -erson of -rivate
res-ondent to Jedda, officials -etitioner may ,ave acted +eyond its duties as em-loyer. <etitionerEs -ur-orted act
contri+uted to and am-lified or even -ro1imately caused additional ,umiliation misery and suffering of -rivate res-ondent.
<etitioner t,ere+y allegedly facilitated t,e arrest detention and -rosecution of -rivate res-ondent under t,e guise of
-etitionerEs aut,ority as em-loyer ta8ing advantage of t,e trust confidence and fait, s,e re-osed u-on it. *s -ur-ortedly
found +y t,e <rince of Ca88a, t,e alleged conviction and im-risonment of -rivate res-ondent .as .rongful. 7ut t,ese
ca--ed t,e in4ury or ,arm allegedly inflicted u-on ,er -erson and re-utation for .,ic, -etitioner could +e lia+le as
claimed to -rovide com-ensation or redress for t,e .rongs done once duly -roven.
Considering t,at t,e com-laint in t,e court a quo is one involving torts t,e Aconnecting factorH or A-oint of contactH
could +e t,e -lace or -laces .,ere t,e tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. *nd a--lying t,e torts -rinci-le in a
conflicts case .e find t,at t,e <,ili--ines could +e said as a situs of t,e tort (t,e -lace .,ere t,e alleged tortious conduct
too8 -lace#. 0,is is +ecause it is in t,e <,ili--ines .,ere -etitioner allegedly deceived -rivate res-ondent a >ili-ina
residing and .or8ing ,ere. *ccording to ,er s,e ,ad ,onestly +elieved t,at -etitioner .ould in t,e e1ercise of its rig,ts
and in t,e -erformance of its duties Aact .it, 4ustice give ,er ,er due and o+serve ,onesty and good fait,.H Instead
-etitioner failed to -rotect ,er s,e claimed. 0,at certain acts or -arts of t,e in4ury allegedly occurred in anot,er country is
of no moment. >or in our vie. .,at is im-ortant ,ere is t,e -lace .,ere t,e over3all ,arm or t,e fatality of t,e alleged
in4ury to t,e -erson re-utation social standing and ,uman rig,ts of com-lainant ,ad lodged according to t,e -laintiff
+elo. (,erein -rivate res-ondent#. *ll told it is not .it,out +asis to identify t,e <,ili--ines as t,e situs of t,e alleged tort.
Coreover .it, t,e .ides-read criticism of t,e traditional rule of lex loci delicti commissi modern t,eories and rules
on tort lia+ility
11iv
,ave +een advanced to offer fres, 4udicial a--roac,es to arrive at 4ust results. In 8ee-ing a+reast .it,
t,e modern t,eories on tort lia+ility .e find ,ere an occasion to a--ly t,e A"tate of t,e most significant relations,i-H rule
.,ic, in our vie. s,ould +e a--ro-riate to a--ly no. given t,e factual conte1t of t,is case.
In a--lying said -rinci-le to determine t,e "tate .,ic, ,as t,e most significant relations,i- t,e follo.ing contacts
are to +e ta8en into account and evaluated according to t,eir relative im-ortance .it, res-ect to t,e -articular issue: (a#
t,e -lace .,ere t,e in4ury occurredG (+# t,e -lace .,ere t,e conduct causing t,e in4ury occurredG (c# t,e domicile
residence nationality -lace of incor-oration and -lace of +usiness of t,e -arties and (d# t,e -lace .,ere t,e relations,i-
if any +et.een t,e -arties is centered.
11v
*s already discussed t,ere is +asis for t,e claim t,at over3all in4ury occurred and lodged in t,e <,ili--ines. 0,ere is
li8e.ise no @uestion t,at -rivate res-ondent is a resident >ili-ina national .or8ing .it, -etitioner a resident foreign
cor-oration engaged ,ere in t,e +usiness of international air carriage. 0,us t,e Arelations,i-H +et.een t,e -arties .as
centered ,ere alt,oug, it s,ould +e stressed t,at t,is suit is not +ased on mere la+or la. violations. >rom t,e record t,e
claim t,at t,e <,ili--ines ,as t,e most significant contact .it, t,e matter in t,is dis-ute
11vi
raised +y -rivate res-ondent
as -laintiff +elo. against defendant (,erein -etitioner# in our vie. ,as +een -ro-erly esta+lis,ed.
<rescinding from t,is -remise t,at t,e <,ili--ines is t,e situs of t,e tort com-laint of and t,e -lace A,aving t,e most
interest in t,e -ro+lemH .e find +y .ay of reca-itulation t,at t,e <,ili--ine la. on tort lia+ility s,ould ,ave -aramount
a--lication to and control in t,e resolution of t,e legal issues arising out of t,is case. >urt,er .e ,old t,at t,e res-ondent
Regional 0rial Court ,as 4urisdiction over t,e -arties and t,e su+4ect matter of t,e com-laintG t,e a--ro-riate venue is in
?ue6on City .,ic, could -ro-erly a--ly <,ili--ine la.. Coreover .e find untena+le -etitionerEs insistence t,at AOsPince
-rivate res-ondent instituted t,is suit s,e ,as t,e +urden of -leading and -roving t,e a--lica+le "audi la. on t,e
matter.H
11vii
*s a-tly said +y -rivate res-ondent s,e ,as Ano o+ligation to -lead and -rove t,e la. of t,e Dingdom of "audi
*ra+ia since ,er cause of action is +ased on *rticles 19 and 91H of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines. In ,er *mended
Com-laint and su+se@uent -leadings s,e never alleged t,at "audi la. s,ould govern t,is case.
11viii
*nd as correctly ,eld
+y t,e res-ondent a--ellate court Aconsidering t,at it .as t,e -etitioner .,o .as invo8ing t,e a--lica+ility of t,e la. of
"audi *ra+ia t,us t,e +urden .as on it O-etitionerP to -lead and to esta+lis, .,at t,e la. of "audi *ra+ia isH.
11i1
(astly no error could +e im-uted to t,e res-ondent a--ellate court in u-,olding t,e trial courtEs denial of defendantEs
(,erein -etitionerEs# motion to dismiss t,e case. /ot only .as 4urisdiction in order and venue -ro-erly laid +ut a--eal
after trial .as o+viously availa+le and t,e e1-editious trial itself indicated +y t,e nature of t,e case at ,and. Indu+ita+ly
t,e <,ili--ines is t,e state intimately concerned .it, t,e ultimate outcome of t,e case +elo. not 4ust for t,e +enefit of all
t,e litigants +ut also for t,e vindication of t,e countryEs system of la. and 4ustice in a transnational setting. Bit, t,ese
guidelines in mind t,e trial court must -roceed to try and ad4udge t,e case in t,e lig,t of relevant <,ili--ine la. .it, due
consideration of t,e foreign element or elements involved. /ot,ing said ,erein of course s,ould +e construed as
-re4udging t,e results of t,e case in any manner .,atsoever.
7$EREFORE t,e instant -etition for certiorari is ,ere+y ;I"CI"");. Civil Case /o. ?39$318$9& entitled ACilagros
<. Corada vs. "audi *ra+ia *irlinesH is ,ere+y R)C*/;); to Regional 0rial Court of ?ue6on City 7ranc, 89 for furt,er
-roceedings.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES 8S. COURT OF APPEALS,
99: "CR* &%91998
>*C0":
Herein -rivate res-ondent Cilagros <. Corada is a flig,t attendant for -etitioner "*!;I* airlines .,ere t,e former .as
tried to +e ra-ed +y 0,amer and *lla, *lGa66a.i +ot, "auidi nationals and fello. cre. mem+er after a nig,t of dancing
in t,eir ,otel .,ile in Ja8arta Indonesia. ",e .as rescued. *fter t.o.ee8s of detention t,e accused .ere +ot,
de-orted to "audi and t,ey .erereinstated +y "audia. ",e .as -ressured +y -olice officers to ma8e a statementand to dro-
t,e case against t,e accusedG in return s,e .ill t,en +e allo.ed toreturn to Canila and retrieved ,er -ass-ort. >or t,e second
time s,e .as as8ed+y ,er su-er i or s t o agai n a--ear +ef or e t ,e "audi cour t . Bi t ,out
,er 8no.ledge s,e .as already tried +y "audi court toget,er .it, t,e accused and.as sentenced to five mont,s
im-risonment and to 98% las,es in connection .it,Ja8arta ra-e incident. 0,e court found ,er guilty of (1# adulteryG (9# going to
adisco dancing and listening to t,e music in violation of Islamic la.sG and ($# sociali6ing .it, t,e male cre. in
contravention of Islamic tradition.
I ""!)I ":
BH)0H)R =R /=0 t ,e ?C Regi onal 0ri al Court ,as 4 uri sdi ct i on t o,ear and t ry t ,e ci vi l case +ased
on *rt i cl e 91 of t ,e /e. Ci vi l Code or t ,eDingdom of "audi *ra+ia court t,oug, t,ere is t,e e1istence of foreign element.
R!(I/G:
0,e forms in .,ic, a foreign element may a--ear are many suc, as t,e fact t,atone -arty is a resident <,ili--ine national and
t,at t,e ot,er is a resident foreigncor-oration. 0,e forms in .,ic, t,is foreign element may a--ear are many. 0,eforeign
element may sim-ly consist in t,e fact t,at one of t,e -arties to a contractis an alien or ,as a foreign domicile or t,at a contract
+et.een nationals of one"tate involves -ro-erties situated in anot,er "tate. In ot,er cases t,e foreignelement may
assume a com-le1 form. In t,e instant case t,e foreign elementconsisted in t,e fact t,at -rivate res-ondent Corada
is a resident <,ili--inenational and t,at -etitioner "*!;I* is a resident foreign cor-oration. *lso +yvi rt ue of t ,e
em-l oyment of Corada .i t , t ,e -et i t i oner "*!;I * as a f l i g,t ste.ardess events did trans-ire during ,er
many occasions of travel acrossnational +orders -articularly from Canila <,ili--ines to Jedda, "audi *ra+iaand vice
versa t,at caused a AconflictsH situation to arise.0,e forms in .,ic, a foreign element may a--ear are many suc, as t,e fact t,atone
-arty is a resident <,ili--ine national and t,at t,e ot,er is a resident foreigncor-oration. 0,e forms in .,ic, t,is foreign
element may a--ear are many. 0,eforeign element may sim-ly consist in t,e fact t,at one of t,e -arties to a contractis an alien or
,as a foreign domicile or t,at a contract +et.een nationals of one
"tate involves -ro-erties situated in anot,er "tate. In ot,er cases t,e foreignelement may assume a com-le1 form. In t,e
instant case t,e foreign elementconsisted in t,e fact t,at -rivate res-ondent Corada is a resident
<,ili--inenational and t,at -etitioner "*!;I* is a resident foreign cor-oration. *lso +yvi rt ue of t ,e em-l oyment of
Corada .i t , t ,e -et i t i oner "*!;I * as a f l i g,t ste.ardess events did trans-ire during ,er many occasions
of travel acrossnational +orders -articularly from Canila <,ili--ines to Jedda, "audi *ra+iaand vice versa t,at caused a
AconflictsH situation to arise.B,ere t,e factual antecedents satisfactorily esta+lis, t,e e1istence of a foreignel ement t ,e
-ro+l em coul d -resent a Aconf l i ct sH case. B,ere t ,e f act ual antecedents satisfactorily esta+lis, t,e e1istence
of a foreign element .e agree.it, -etitioner t,at t,e -ro+lem ,erein could -resent a AconflictsH case. * factualsituation
t,at cuts across territorial lines and is affected +y t,e diverse la.s of t.o or more states is said to contain a Aforeign
element.H 0,e -resence of aforeign element is inevita+le since social and economic affairs of individuals
andassoci at i ons ar e r ar el y conf i ned t o t ,e geogr a-,i c l i mi t s of t ,ei r +i r t , or conce-tion.
i
ii
G.R. No. L91:;<<= Dece5ber >, 199;
BIEN8ENIDO . CADALIN, ROLANDO . AUL, DONATO B. E8ANGELISTA, !"# t'e re(t o. 1,<=<
NAED9COPLAINANTS, t'r- !"# b* t'e&r Attor"e*9&"9.!ct, Att*. GERARDO A. DEL UNDO, -etitioners
vs.
P$ILIPPINE O8ERSEAS EPLO?ENT ADINISTRATION@S ADINISTRATOR, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COISSION, BRO7N A ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANDBOR ASIA INTERNATIONAL
BUILDERS CORPORATION, res-ondents.
G.R. No(. 1:;91191; Dece5ber >, 199;
BIEN8ENIDO . CADALIN, ET AL., -etitioners
vs.
$ON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COISSION, BRO7N A ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC. !"#Bor
ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS CORPORATION, res-ondents.
G.R. No(. 1:>:299C2 Dece5ber >, 199;
ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDER CORPORATION !"# BRO7N A ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
-etitioners
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COISSION, BIEN8ENIDO . CADALIN, ROLANDO . AUL, DONATO
B. E8ANGELISTA, ROEO PATAG, RI%ALINO RE?ES, IGNACIO DE 8ERA, SOLOON B. RE?ES, ,OSE
. ABAN, EIGDIO N. ABAR0UE%, ANTONIO ACUPAN, ROEO ACUPAN, BEN,AIN ALE,ANDRE,
7ILFREDO D. ALIGADO, ARTIN AISTAD, ,R., ROLANDO B. AUL, AORSOLO ANADING, ANTONIO
T. ANGLO, 8ICENTE ARLITA, $ERBERT A?O, SIL8ERIO BALATA%O, ALFREDO BALOBO, FALCONERO
BANAAG, RAON BARBOSA, FELID BARCENA, FERNANDO BAS, ARIO BATACLAN, ROBERTO S.
BATICA, ENRICO BELEN, ARISTEO BICOL, LARR? C. BICOL, PETRONILLO BISCOC$O, FELID .
BOBIER, DIONISIO BOBONGO, BA?ANI S. BRACAANTE, PABLITO BUSTILLO, GUILLERO CABE%AS,
BIEN8ENIDO CADALIN, RODOLFO CAGATAN, AANTE CAILAO, IRENEO CANDOR, ,OSE CASTILLO,
ANUEL CASTILLO, REAR CASTRO,ERES, RE?NALDO CA?AS, ROEO CECILIO, TEODULO CREUS,
BA?ANI DA?RIT, RICARDO DA?RIT, ERNESTO T. DELA CRU%, FRANCISCO DE GU%AN, ONOFRE DE
RAA, IGNACIO DE 8ERA, ODESTO DI%ON, RE?NALDO DI%ON, ANTONIO S. DOINGUE%, GILBERT
EBRADA, RICARDO EBRADA, ANTONIO E,ERCITO, ,R., EDUARTE ERIDAO, ELADIO ESCOTOTO, ,O$N
ESGUERRA, EDUARDO ESPIRITU, ERNESTO ESPIRITU, RODOLFO ESPIRITU, NESTOR . ESTE8A,
BEN,AIN ESTRADA, 8ALERIO E8ANGELISTA, OLIGARIO FRANCISCO, ,ESUS GABA7AN, ROLANDO
GARCIA, ANGEL GUDA, PACITO $ERNANDE%, ANTONIO $ILARIO, $ENR? L. ,ACOB, $ONESTO
,ARDINIANO, ANTONIO ,OCSON, GERARDO LACSAANA, EFREN U. LIRIO LORETO LONTOC, ISRAEL
LOREN%O, ALE,ANDRO LORINO, ,OSE ABALA?, $ERIE ARANAN, LEO8IGILDO ARCIAL, NOEL
ARTINE%, DANTE ATREO, LUCIANO ELENDE%, RENATO ELO, FRANCIS EDIODIA, ,OSE C.
ILANES, RA?UNDO C. ILA?, CRESENCIANO IRANDA, ILDEFONSO C. OLINA, ARANDO B.
ONDE,AR RESURRECCION D. NA%ARENO, ,UAN OLINDO, FRANCISCO R. OLI8ARES, PEDRO
ORBISTA, ,R., RICARDO ORDONE%, ERNIE PANC$O, ,OSE PANC$O, GORGONIO P. PARALA,
ODESTO PINPIN, ,UANITO PAREA, ROEO I. PATAG, FRANCISCO PINPIN, LEONARDO POBLETE,
,AIE POLLOS, DOINGO PONDALIS, EUGENIO RAIRE%, LUCIEN . RESPALL, GAUDENCIO
RETANAN, ,R., TOAS B. RETENER, AL8IN C. RE?ES, RI%ALINO RE?ES, SOLOON B. RE?ES,
8IRGILIO G. RICA%A, RODELIO RIETA, ,R., BENITO RI8ERA, ,R., BERNARDO ,. ROBILLOS, PABLO A.
ROBLES, ,OSE ROBLE%A, 0UIRINO RON0UILLO, A8ELINO . RO0UE, ENANDRO L. SABINO, PEDRO
SALGATAR, EDGARDO SALONGA, NUERIANO SAN ATEO, FELI%ARDO DE LOS SANTOS, ,R.,
GABRIEL SANTOS, ,UANITO SANTOS, PA0UITO SOLANTE, CONRADO A. SOLIS, ,R., RODOLFO
SULTAN, ISAIAS TALACTAC, 7ILLIA TARUC, ENANDRO TEPROSA, BIEN8ENIDO S. TOLENTINO,
BENEDICTO TORRES, ADIIANO TORRES, FRANCISCO G. TRIAS, SERGIO A. URSOLINO, ROGELIO
8ALDE%, LEGORIO E. 8ERGARA, DELFIN 8ICTORIA, GILBERT 8ICTORIA, $ERNANE 8ICTORIANO,
FRANCISCO 8ILLAFLORES, DOINGO 8ILLA$EROSA, ROLANDO 8ILLALOBOS, ANTONIO 8ILLAU%,
DANILO 8ILLANUE8A, ROGELIO 8ILLANUE8A, ANGEL 8ILLARBA, ,UANITO 8ILLARINO, FRANCISCO
%ARA, ROGELIO AALAGOS, NICANOR B. ABAD, ANDRES ABANES, RE?NALDO ABANES, EDUARDO
ABANTE, ,OSE ABARRO, ,OSEFINO ABARRO, CELSO S. ABELANIO, $ERINIO ABELLA, IGUEL
ABESTANO, RODRIGO G. ABUBO, ,OSE B. ABUSTAN, DANTE ACERES, RE?NALDO S. ACO,IDO,
LEO7ILIN ACTA, EUGENIO C. ACUE%A, EDUARDO ACUPAN, RE?NALDO ACUPAN, SOLANO ACUPAN,
ANUEL P. ADANA, FLORENTINO R. AGNE, 0UITERIO R. AGUDO, ANUEL P. AGUINALDO, DANTE
AGUIRRE, $ERINIO AGUIRRE, GON%ALO ALBERTO, ,R., CONRADO ALCANTARA, LABERTO 0.
ALCANTARA, ARIANITO ,. ALCANTARA, BENCIO ALDO8ER, EULALIO 8. ALE,ANDRO, BEN,AIN
ALE,ANDRO, EDUARDO L. ALE,ANDRO, ADIINO ALE,ANDRO, ALBERTO ALENAR, ARNALDO
ALON%O, AADO ALORIA, CAILO AL8ARE%, ANUEL C. AL8ARE%, BEN,AIN R. ABROCIO,
CARLOS AORES, BERNARD P. ANC$ETA, TIOTEO O. ANC$ETA, ,EOFRE? ANI, ELINO P. ANTILLON,
ARANDRO B. ANTIPONO, LARR? T. ANTONIO, ANTONIO APILADO, ARTURO P. APILADO, FRANCISCO
APOLINARIO, BARTOLOE . A0UINO, ISIDRO A0UINO, PASTOR A0UINO, ROSENDO . A0UINO,
ROBERTO ARANGORIN, BEN,AIN O. ARATEA, ARTURO 8. ARAULLO, PRUDENCIO ARAULLO,
ALEDANDER ARCAIRA, FRANCISCO ARCIAGA, ,OSE ARE8ALO, ,UANTO ARE8ALO, RAON
ARE8ALO, RODOLFO ARE8ALO, EULALIO ARGUELLES, 7ILFREDO P. ARICA, ,OSE . ADESILLO,
ANTONIO ASUNCION, ARTEIO . ASUNCION, EDGARDO ASUNCION, RED? . ASUNCION, 8ICENTE
AURELIO, ANGEL AUSTRIA, RICARDO P. A8ERILLA, ,R., 8IRGILIO A8ILA, BARTOLOE ADALAN,
ALFREDO BABILONIA, FELION BACAL, ,OSE L. BACANI, ROULO R. BALBIERAN, 8ICENTE
BALBIERAN, RODOLFO BALITBIT, TEODORO ?. BALOBO, DANILO O. BARBA, BERNARDO BARRO,
,UAN A. BASILAN, CEFERINO BATITIS, 8I8ENCIO C. BAUAN, GAUDENCIO S. BAUTISTA, LEONARDO
BAUTISTA, ,OSE D. BAUTISTA, ROSTICO BAUTISTA, RUPERTO B. BAUTISTA, TEODORO S. BAUTISTA,
8IRGILIO BAUTISTA, ,ESUS R. BA?A, 7INIEFREDO BA?ACAL, 7INIEFREDO BEBIT, BEN G. BELIR,
ERIC B. BELTRAN, EELIANO BENALES, ,R., RAUL BENITE%, PERFECTO BENSAN, IRENEO
BERGONIO, ISABELO BERUDE%, ROLANDO I. BERUDE%, DANILO BERON, BEN,AIN BERSAIN,
ANGELITO BICOL, ANSELO BICOL, CELESTINO BICOL, ,R., FRANCISCO BICOL, ROGELIO BICOL,
ROULO L. BICOL, ROGELIO BILLIONES, TEOFILO N. BITO, FERNANDO BLANCO, AUGUSTO
BONDOC, DOINGO BONDOC, PEPE S. BOOC, ,AES R. BOR,A, 7ILFREDO BRACEROS, ANGELES
C. BRECINO, EURECL?DON G. BRIONES, AADO BRUGE, PABLITO BUDILLO, ARC$IEDES
BUENA8ENTURA, BASILIO BUENA8ENTURA, GUILLERO BUENCONSE,O, ALEDANDER
BUSTAANTE, 8IRGILIO BUTIONG, ,R., $ONESTO P. CABALLA, DELFIN CABALLERO, BENEDICTO
CABANIGAN, OISES CABATA?, $ERANELI CABRERA, PEDRO CAGATAN, ,O8EN C. CAGA?AT,
ROGELIO L. CALAGOS, RE?NALDO 8. CALDE,ON, OSCAR C. CALDERON, NESTOR D. CALLE,A,
RENATO R. CALA, NELSON T. CAAC$O, SANTOS T. CAAC$O, ROBERTO CAANA, FLORANTE C.
CAANAG EDGARDO . CANDA, SE8ERINO CANTOS, EPIFANIO A. CAPONPON, ELIAS D. CARILLO,
,R., ARANDO CARREON, ENANDRO . CASTAEEDA, BENIGNO A. CASTILLO, CORNELIO L.
CASTILLO, ,OSEP$ B. CASTILLO, ANSELO CASTILLO, ,OA0UIN CASTILLO, PABLO L. CASTILLO,
ROEO P. CASTILLO, SESINANDO CATIBOG, DANILO CASTRO, PRUDENCIO A. CASTRO, RAO
CASTRO, ,R., ROEO A. DE CASTRO, ,AIE B. CATLI, DURANA D. CEFERINO, RODOLFO B. CELIS,
$ERINIGILDO CERE%O, 8ICTORIANO CELESTINO, BEN,AIN C$AN, ANTONIO C. C$UA, 8I8ENCIO B.
CIABAL, RODRIGO CLARETE, AUGUSTO COLOA, TURIANO CONCEPCION, TERESITO CONSTANTINO,
ARANDO CORALES, RENATO C. CORCUERA, APOLINAR CORONADO, ABELARDO CORONEL, FELID
CORONEL, ,R., LEONARDO CORPU%, ,ESUS . CORRALES, CESAR CORTEPRATO, FRANCISCO O.
COR8ERA, FRANCISCO COSTALES, SR., CELEDONIO CREDITO, ALBERTO A. CREUS, ANACLETO 8.
CRU%, DOINGO DELA CRU%, AELIANO DELA CRU%, ,R., PANC$ITO CRU%, RE?NALDO B. DELA
CRU%, ROBERTO P. CRU%, TEODORO S. CRU%, %OSIO DELA CRU%, DIONISIO A. CUARESA,
FELION CUI%ON, FERIN DAGONDON, RIC$ARD DAGUINSIN, CRISANTO A. DATA?, NICASIO
DANTINGUINOO, ,OSE DATOON, EDUARDO DA8ID, ENRICO T. DA8ID, FA8IO DA8ID, 8ICTORIANO S.
DA8ID, EDGARDO N. DA?ACAP, ,OSELITO T. DELOSO, CELERINO DE GU%AN, ROULO DE GU%AN,
LIBERATO DE GU%AN, ,OSE DE LEON, ,OSELITO L. DE LUBAN, NAPOLEON S. DE LUNA, RICARDO
DE RAA, GENEROSO DEL ROSARIO, ALBERTO DELA CRU%, ,OSE DELA CRU%, LEONARDO DELOS
RE?ES, ERNESTO F. DIATA, EDUARDO A. DIA%, FELID DIA%, ELC$OR DIA%, NICANOR S. DIA%,
GERARDO C. DIGA, CLEENTE DIATULAC, ROLANDO DIONISIO, P$ILIPP G. DISA?A, BEN,AIN
DOCTOLERO, ALBERTO STO. DOINGO, BEN,AIN E. DO%A, BEN,AIN DUPA, DANILO C. DURAN,
GREGORIO D. DURAN, RENATO A. EDUARTE, GODOFREDO E. EISA, ARDON B. ELLO, UBED B. ELLO,
,OSEFINO ENANO, RE?NALDO ENCARNACION, EDGARDO ENGUANCIO, ELIAS E0UIPANO,
FELI%ARDO ESCAROSA, IGUEL ESCAROSA, ARANDO ESCOBAR, ROEO T. ESCU?OS,
ANGELITO ESPIRITU, EDUARDO S. ESPIRITU, RE?NALDO ESPIRITU, ROLANDO ESPIRITU, ,ULIAN
ESPREGANTE, IGIDIO ESTANISLAO, ERNESTO . ESTEBAN, ELANIO R. ESTRO, ERNESTO .
ESTE8A, CONRADO ESTUAR, CL?DE ESTU?E, ELISEO FA,ARDO, PORFIRIO FAL0UE%A, 7ILFREDO P.
FAUSTINO, EILIO E. FERNANDE%, ARTEIO FERRER, ISAEL . FIGURACION, ARANDO F.
FLORES, BEN,AIN FLORES, EDGARDO C. FLORES, BUENA8ENTURA FRANCISCO, ANUEL S.
FRANCISCO, ROLANDO FRANCISCO, 8ALERIANO FRANCISCO, RODOLFO GABA7AN, ESERALDO
GA$UTAN, CESAR C. GALANG, SANTIAGO N. GALOSO, GABRIEL GABOA, BERNARDO GANDAON,
,UAN GAN%ON, ANDRES GARCIA, ,R., ARANDO . GARCIA, EUGENIO GARCIA, ARCELO L.
GARCIA, PATRICIO L. GARCIA, ,R., PONCIANO G. GARCIA, PONCIANO G. GARCIA, ,R., RAFAEL P.
GARCIA, ROBERTO S. GARCIA, OSIAS G. GAROFIL, RA?UNDO C. GARON, ROLANDO G. GATELA,
A8ELINO GA?ETA, RA?UNDO GERON, PLACIDO GON%ALES, RUPERTO $. GON%ALES, ROGELIO D.
GUANIO, ARTIN 8. GUERRERO, ,R., ALEDIS GUNO, RICARDO L. GUNO, FRANCISCO GUPIT, DENNIS
,. GUTIERRE%, IGNACIO B. GUTIERRE%, ANGELITO DE GU%AN, ,R., CESAR $. $ABANA, RAUL G.
$ERNANDE%, RE?NALDO $ERNANDE%, ,O8ENIANO D. $ILADO, ,USTO $ILAPO, ROSTITO $INA$ON,
FELICISIO $INGADA, EDUARDO $IPOLITO, RAUL L. IGNACIO, ANUEL L. ILAGAN, RENATO L.
ILAGAN, CONRADO A. INSIONG, GRACIANO G. ISLA, ARNEL L. ,ACOB, OSCAR ,. ,APITENGA, CIRILO
$ICBAN, ADIIANO $ONRADES, GENEROSO IGNACIO, FELIPE ILAGAN, EDPEDITO N. ,ACOB,
ARIO ,ASIN, BIEN8ENIDO ,A8IER, ROEO . ,A8IER, PRIO DE ,ESUS, RE?NALDO DE ,ESUS,
CARLOS A. ,IENE%, DANILO E. ,IENE%, PEDRO C. ,OA0UIN, FELIPE 7. ,OCSON, FELINO .
,OCSON, PEDRO N. ,OCSON, 8ALENTINO S. ,OCSON, PEDRO B. ,OLO?A, ESTEBAN P. ,OSE, ,R.,
RAUL ,OSE, RICARDO SAN ,OSE, GERTRUDO FABIGTING, EDUARDO S. FOLILI, SR., LAURO ,.
LABA?, EANUEL C. LABELLA, EDGARDO B. LACERONA, ,OSE B. LACSON, ARIO ,. LADINES,
RUFINO LAGAC, RODRIGO LAGANAPAN, EFREN . LAADRID, GUADENCIO LATANAN, 8IRGILIO
LATA?AN, EILIANO LATO,A, 7ENCESLAO LAUREL, ALFREDO LADAANA, DANIEL R. LA%ARO,
ANTONIO C. LEANO, ARTURO S. LEGASPI, BENITO DE LEOS, ,R., PEDRO G. DE LEON, ANOLITO C.
LILOC, GERARDO LIUACO, ERNESTO S. LISING, RENATO LISING, 7ILFREDO S. LISING, CRISPULO
LONTOC, PEDRO . LOPERA, ROGELIO LOPERA, CARLITO . LOPE%, CLOD? LOPE%, GARLITO
LOPE%, GEORGE F. LOPE%, 8IRGILIO . LOPE%, BERNARDITO G. LORE,A, DOINGO B. LORICO,
DOINGO LO?OLA, DANTE LUAGE, ANTONIO . LUAL$ATI, EANUEL LUAL$ATI, ,R., LEONIDE% C.
LUAL$ATI, SEBASTIAN LUAL$ATI, FRANCISCO LUBAT, ARANDO LUCERO, ,OSELITO L. DE
LUBAN, T$OAS 8ICENTE O. LUNA, NOLI ACALADLAD, ALFREDO ACALINO, RICARDO
ACALINO, ARTURO 8. ACARAIG, ERNESTO 8. ACARAIG, RODOLFO 8. ACARAIG, BEN,AIN
ACATANGA?, $EROGENES ACATANGA?, RODEL ACATANGA?, ROULO ACATANGA?, OSIAS
0. ADLANGBA?AN, NICOLAS P. ADRID, EDELBERTO G. AGAT, EFREN C. AGBANUA, BEN,AIN
AGBU$AT, ALFREDO C. AGCALENG, ANTONIO AGNA?E, ALFONSO AGPANTA?, RICARDO C.
AGPANTA?, SIEON . AGPANTA?, ARANDO . AGSINO, ACARIO S. AGSINO, ANTONIO
AGTIBA?, 8ICTOR 8. AGTIBA?, GERONIO A$ILU, ANUEL ALON%O, RICARDO AADIS,
RODOLFO ANA, BERNARDO A. ANALILI, ANUEL ANALILI, ANGELO ANALO, AGUILES L.
ANALO, LEOPOLDO ANGA$AS, BA?ANI ANIGBAS, ROLANDO C. ANITI, DANIEL ANONSON,
ERNESTO F. ANUEL, EDUARDO AN%ANO, RICARDO N. APA, RAON APILE, ROBERTO C.
ARANA, NEESIO ARASIGAN, 7ENCESLAO ARASIGAN, LEONARDO ARCELO, $ENR? F.
ARIANO, ,OEL ARIDABLE, SANTOS E. ARINO, NARCISO A. AR0UE%, RICARDO ARTINE%,
DIEGO ASICAPO, AURELIO ATABERDE, RENATO ATILLA, 8ICTORIANO ATILLA, 8IRGILIO
EDEL, LOLITO . ELECIO, BENIGNO ELENDE%, RENER ,. EI,E, RE?NALDO F. EI,E, RODEL
EI,E, A8ELINO ENDO%A, ,R., CLARO ENDO%A, TIOTEO ENDO%A, GREGORIO ERCADO,
ERNANI DELA ERCED, RICARDO ERCENA, NEESIO ETRELLO, RODEL EI,E, GASPAR
INIO, BEN,AIN IRANDA, FELIDBERTO D. ISA, CLAUDIO A. ODESTO, ,R., OSCAR ONDEDO,
GENEROSO ONTON, RENATO ORADA, RICARDO ORADA, RODOLFO ORADA, ROLANDO .
ORALES, FEDERICO . ORENO, 8ICTORINO A. ORTEL, ,R., ESPIRITU A. UNO%, IGNACIO
UNO%, ILDEFONSO UNO%, ROGELIO UNO%, ERNESTO NAPALAN, ARCELO A. NARCI%O,
RE?NALDO NATALIA, FERNANDO C. NA8ARETTE, PACIFICO D. NA8ARRO, FLORANTE NA%ARENO,
RI%AL B. NA%ARIO, ,OSUE NEGRITE, ALFREDO NEPUUCENO, $ERBERT G. NG, FLORENCIO
NICOLAS, ERNESTO C. NINON, A8ELINO NU0UI, NEESIO D. OBA, DANILO OCAPO, EDGARDO
OCAPO, RODRIGO E. OCAPO, ANTONIO B. OCCIANO, RE?NALDO P. OCSON, BEN,AIN ODESA,
ANGEL OLASO, FRANCISCO OLIGARIO, %OSIO OLIBO, BEN,AIN 8. ORALLO, ROEO S.
ORIGINES, DANILO R. ORTANE%, 7ILFREDO OSIAS, 8IRGILIO PA9A, DA8ID PAALAN, ,ESUS N.
PAC$ECO, ALFONSO L. PADILLA, DANILO PAGSAN,AN, NUERIANO PAGSISI$AN, RICARDO T.
PAGUIO, EILIO PAFINGAN, LEANDRO PALABRICA, 0UINCIANO PALO, ,OSE PAATIAN, GON%ALO
PAN, PORFIRIO PAN, BIEN8ENIDO PANGAN, ERNESTO PANGAN, FRANCISCO 8. PASIA, EDILBERTO
PASIIO, ,R., ,OSE 8. PASION, ANGELITO . PENA, DIONISIO PENDRAS, $ERINIO PERALTA,
RE?NALDO . PERALTA, ANTONIO PERE%, ANTOLIANO E. PERE%, ,UAN PERE%, LEON PERE%,
ROEO E. PERE%, ROULO PERE%, 7ILLIA PERE%, FERNANDO G. PERINO, FLORENTINO DEL
PILAR, DELAR F. PINEDA, SAL8ADOR PINEDA, ELI%ALDE PINPIN, 7ILFREDO PINPIN, ARTURO
POBLETE, DOINADOR R. PRIELA, BUENA8ENTURA PRUDENTE, CARELITO PRUDENTE, DANTE
PUE?O, RE?NALDO 0. PUE?O, RODOLFO O. PULIDO, ALE,ANDRO PUNIO, FEDERICO 0UIAN,
ALFREDO L. 0UINTO, ROEO 0UINTOS, EDUARDO 7. RACABO, RICARDO C. DE RAA, RICARDO L.
DE RAA, ROLANDO DE RAA, FERNANDO A. RAIRE%, LITO S. RAIRE%, RICARDO G. RAIRE%,
RODOLFO 8. RAIRE%, ALBERTO RAOS, ANSELO C. RAOS, TOBIAS RAOS, 7ILLARFREDO
RA?UNDO, RE?NALDO RA0UEDAN, ANUEL F. RA8ELAS, 7ILFREDO D. RA?UNDO, ERNESTO E.
RECOLASO, ALBERTO REDA%A, ART$UR RE,USO, TORIBIO . RELLAA, ,AIE RELLOSA, EUGENIO
A. REO0UILLO, GERARDO RENTO%A, REDENTOR C. RE?, ALFREDO S. RE?ES, AABLE S. RE?ES,
BENEDICTO R. RE?ES, GREGORIO B. RE?ES, ,OSE A. RE?ES, ,OSE C. RE?ES, ROULO . RE?ES,
SERGIO RE?ES, ERNESTO F. RICO, FERNANDO . RICO, EANUEL RIETA, RICARDO RIETA, LEO B.
ROBLES, RUBEN ROBLES, RODOLFO ROBLE%A, RODRIGO ROBLE%A, EDUARDO ROCABO, ANTONIO
R. RODRIGUE%, BERNARDO RODRIGUE%, ELIGIO RODRIGUE%, ALONTE ROEO, ELIAS RON0UILLO,
ELISE RON0UILLO, LUIS 8AL B. RON0UILLO, RE?NOSO P. RON0UILLO, RODOLFO RON0UILLO,
ANGEL ROSALES, RAON ROSALES, ALBERTO DEL ROSARIO, GENEROSO DEL ROSARIO,
TEODORICO DEL ROSARIO, 8IRGILIO L. ROSARIO, CARLITO SAL8ADOR, ,OSE SAPARADA,
ERNESTO SAN PEDRO, ADRIANO 8. SANC$A, GERONIO . SANC$A, ARTEIO B. SANC$E%,
NICASIO SANC$E%, APOLONIO P. SANTIAGO, ,OSELITO S. SANTIAGO, SERGIO SANTIAGO,
EDILBERTO C. SANTOS, EFREN S. SANTOS, RENATO D. SANTOS, IGUEL SAPU?OT, ALED S.
SER0UINA, DOINADOR P. SERRA, ROEO SIDRO, AADO . SILANG, FAUSTINO D. SILANG,
RODOLFO B. DE SILOS, ANICETO G. SIL8A, EDGARDO . SIL8A, ROLANDO C. SIL8ERTO, ART$UR B.
SIBA$ON, DOINGO SOLANO, ,OSELITO C. SOLANTE, CARLITO SOLIS, CONRADO SOLIS, III,
EDGARDO SOLIS, ERNESTO SOLIS, ISAGANI . SOLIS, EDUARDO L. SOTTO, ERNESTO G. STA.
ARIA, 8ICENTE G. STELLA, FELION SUPANG, PETER TANGUINOO, ADIINO TALIBSAO,
FELICISO P. TALUSIF, FERIN TARUC, ,R., LE8? S. TEPLO, RODOLFO S. TIASON, LEONILO
TIPOSO, ARNEL TOLENTINO, ARIO . TOLENTINO, FELIPE TORRALBA, ,O8ITO 8. TORRES,
LEONARDO DE TORRES, GA8INO U. TUA%ON, AUGUSTO B. TUNGUIA, FRANCISCO UALI, SIPLICIO
UNIDA, 7ILFREDO 8. UNTALAN, ANTONIO 8ALDERAA, RAON 8ALDERAA, NILO 8ALENCIANO,
EDGARDO C. 8AS0UE%, ELPIDIO 8ELAS0UE%, NESTOR DE 8ERA, 7ILFREDO D. 8ERA, BIEN8ENIDO
8ERGARA, ALFREDO 8ERGARA, RAON R. 8ER%OSA, FELICITO P. 8ICUNDO, ALFREDO
8ICTORIANO, TEOFILO P. 8IDALLO, SABINO N. 8IERNE%, ,ESUS ,. 8ILLA, ,O8EN 8ILLABLANCO,
EDGARDO G. 8ILLAFLORES, CEFERINO 8ILLAGERA, ALED 8ILLA$ERO%A, DANILO A. 8ILLANUE8A,
ELITO 8ILLANUE8A, LEONARDO . 8ILLANUE8A, ANUEL R. 8ILLANUE8A, NEPT$ALI 8ILLAR, ,OSE
8. 8ILLAREAL, FELICISIO 8ILLARINO, RAFAEL 8ILLAROAN, CARLOS 8ILLENA, FERDINAND 8I8O,
ROBERTO ?ABUT, 8ICENTE ?NGENTE, AND ORO C. %UNIGA, res-ondents.
Gerardo *. ;el Cundo and *ssociates for -etitioners.
Romulo Ca+anta "ayoc 7uenaventura ;e los *ngeles (a. =ffices for 7RIII*I7C.
>lorante C. ;e Castro for -rivate res-ondents in 1'5'993$9.

0UIASON, J.:
0,e -etition in G.R. /o. 1'&::% entitled 27ienvenido C. Cadalin et. al. v. <,ili--ine =verseas )m-loyment
*dministration5s *dministrator et. al.2 .as filed under Rule %5 of t,e Revised Rules of Court:
(1# to modify t,e Resolution dated "e-tem+er 9 1991 of t,e /ational (a+or Relations
Commission (/(RC# in <=)* Cases /os.
(38&3'%3555 (38531'3::: (38531'3::9 and (38%3'53&%'G (9# to render a ne. decision:
(i# declaring -rivate res-ondents as in defaultG (ii# declaring t,e said la+or cases as a
class suitG (iii# ordering *sia International 7uilders Cor-oration (*I7C# and 7ro.n and
Root International Inc. (7RII# to -ay t,e claims of t,e 1:%: claimants in said la+or
casesG (iv# declaring *tty. >lorante C. de Castro guilty of forum3s,o--ingG and (v#
dismissing <=)* Case /o. (38%3'53&%'G and
($# to reverse t,e Resolution dated Carc, 9& 1999 of /(RC denying t,e motion for
reconsideration of its Resolution dated "e-tem+er 9 1991 (Rollo --. 83988#.
0,e -etition in G.R. /os. 1'&91131& entitled 27ienvenido C. Cadalin et. al. v. Hon. /ational (a+or Relations
Commission et. al.2 .as filed under Rule %5 of t,e Revised Rules of Court:
(1# to reverse t,e Resolution dated "e-tem+er 9 1991 of /(RC in <=)* Cases /os. (3
8&3'%3555 (38531'3::: (38531'3:99 and
(38%3'53&%' insofar as it: (i# a--lied t,e t,ree3year -rescri-tive -eriod under t,e (a+or
Code of t,e <,ili--ines instead of t,e ten3year -rescri-tive -eriod under t,e Civil Code
of t,e <,ili--inesG and (ii# denied t,e
2t,ree3,our daily average2 formula in t,e com-utation of -etitioners5 overtime -ayG and
(9# to reverse t,e Resolution dated Carc, 9& 1999 of /(RC denying t,e motion for
reconsideration of its Resolution dated "e-tem+er 9 1991 (Rollo --. 8395G 9%399'#.
0,e -etition in G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 entitled 2*sia International 7uilders Cor-oration et. al. v. /ational (a+or
Relations Commission et. al.2 .as filed under Rule %5 of t,e Revised Rules of Court:
(1# to reverse t,e Resolution dated "e-tem+er 9 1991 of /(RC in <=)* Cases /os. (3
8&3'%3555 (38531'3::: (38531'3::9 and
(38%3'53&%' insofar as it granted t,e claims of 1&9 claimantsG and
(9# to reverse t,e Resolution dated Carc, 91 1999 of /(RC insofar as it denied t,e
motions for reconsideration of *I7C and 7RII (Rollo --. 9359G %139$'#.
0,e Resolution dated "e-tem+er 9 1991 of /(RC .,ic, modified t,e decision of <=)* in four la+or cases: (1#
a.arded monetary +enefits only to 1&9 claimants and (9# directed (a+or *r+iter >atima J. >ranco to conduct
,earings and to receive evidence on t,e claims dismissed +y t,e <=)* for lac8 of su+stantial evidence or -roof
of em-loyment.
Consolidation of Cases
G.R. /os. 1'&::% and 1'5'993$9 .ere originally raffled to t,e 0,ird ;ivision .,ile G.R. /os. 1'&91131& .ere
raffled to t,e "econd ;ivision. In t,e Resolution dated July 9% 199$ t,e "econd ;ivision referred G.R. /os.
1'&91131& to t,e 0,ird ;ivision (G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo -. 895#.
In t,e Resolution dated "e-tem+er 99 199$ t,e 0,ird ;ivision granted t,e motion filed in G.R. /os. 1'&91131&
for t,e consolidation of said cases .it, G.R. /os. 1'&::% and 1'5'993$9 .,ic, .ere assigned to t,e >irst
;ivision (G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo --. 98%311':G G.R. /os. 1'5'993$' Rollo --. $%93$:: &9%3&$9#. In t,e
Resolution dated =cto+er 9: 199$ t,e >irst ;ivision granted t,e motion to consolidate G.R. /os. 1'&91131&
.it, G.R. /o. 1'&::% (G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo -. 11'9G G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 Rollo -. 15%9#.
I
=n June % 198& 7ienvenido C.. Cadalin Rolando C. *mul and ;onato 7. )vangelista in t,eir o.n +e,alf and
on +e,alf of :98 ot,er overseas contract .or8ers (=CBs# instituted a class suit +y filing an 2*mended
Com-laint2 .it, t,e <,ili--ine =verseas )m-loyment *dministration (<=)*# for money claims arising from t,eir
recruitment +y *I7C and em-loyment +y 7RII (<=)* Case /o. (38&3'%3555#. 0,e claimants .ere re-resented
+y *tty. Gerardo del Cundo.
7RII is a foreign cor-oration .it, ,ead@uarters in Houston 0e1as and is engaged in constructionG .,ile *I7C is
a domestic cor-oration licensed as a service contractor to recruit mo+ili6e and de-loy >ili-ino .or8ers for
overseas em-loyment on +e,alf of its foreign -rinci-als.
0,e amended com-laint -rinci-ally soug,t t,e -ayment of t,e une1-ired -ortion of t,e em-loyment contracts
.,ic, .as terminated -rematurely and secondarily t,e -ayment of t,e interest of t,e earnings of t,e 0ravel and
Reserved >und interest on all t,e un-aid +enefitsG area .age and salary differential -ayG fringe +enefitsG refund
of """ and -remium not remitted to t,e """G refund of .it,,olding ta1 not remitted to t,e 7IRG -enalties for
committing -ro,i+ited -racticesG as .ell as t,e sus-ension of t,e license of *I7C and t,e accreditation of 7RII
(G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 1$31&#.
*t t,e ,earing on June 95 198& *I7C .as furnis,ed a co-y of t,e com-laint and .as given toget,er .it, 7RII
u- to July 5 198& to file its ans.er.
=n July $ 198& <=)* *dministrator u-on motion of *I7C and 7RII ordered t,e claimants to file a +ill of
-articulars .it,in ten days from recei-t of t,e order and t,e movants to file t,eir ans.ers .it,in ten days from
recei-t of t,e +ill of -articulars. 0,e <=)* *dministrator also sc,eduled a -re3trial conference on July 95 198&.
=n July 1$ 198& t,e claimants su+mitted t,eir 2Com-liance and Canifestation.2 =n July 9$ 198& *I7C filed a
2Cotion to "tri8e =ut of t,e Records2 t,e 2Com-laint2 and t,e 2Com-liance and Canifestation.2 =n July 95
198& t,e claimants filed t,eir 2Re4oinder and Comments2 averring among ot,er matters t,e failure of *I7C and
7RII to file t,eir ans.ers and to attend t,e -re3trial conference on July 95 198&. 0,e claimants alleged t,at
*I7C and 7RII ,ad .aived t,eir rig,t to -resent evidence and ,ad defaulted +y failing to file t,eir ans.ers and to
attend t,e -re3trial conference.
=n =cto+er 9 198& t,e <=)* *dministrator denied t,e 2Cotion to "tri8e =ut of t,e Records2 filed +y *I7C +ut
re@uired t,e claimants to correct t,e deficiencies in t,e com-laint -ointed out in t,e order.
=n =cto+er 1' 198& claimants as8ed for time .it,in .,ic, to com-ly .it, t,e =rder of =cto+er 9 198& and
filed an 2!rgent Canifestation2 -raying t,at t,e <=)* *dministrator direct t,e -arties to su+mit simultaneously
t,eir -osition -a-ers after .,ic, t,e case s,ould +e deemed su+mitted for decision. =n t,e same day *tty.
>lorante de Castro filed anot,er com-laint for t,e same money claims and +enefits in +e,alf of several
claimants some of .,om .ere also claimants in <=)* Case /o. (38&3'%3555 (<=)* Case /o. 8531'3::9#.
=n =cto+er 19 198& claimants filed t,eir 2Com-liance2 .it, t,e =rder dated =cto+er 9 198& and an 2!rgent
Canifestation2 -raying t,at t,e <=)* direct t,e -arties to su+mit simultaneously t,eir -osition -a-ers after
.,ic, t,e case .ould +e deemed su+mitted for decision. =n t,e same day *I7C as8ed for time to file its
comment on t,e 2Com-liance2 and 2!rgent Canifestation2 of claimants. =n /ovem+er % 198& it filed a second
motion for e1tension of time to file t,e comment.
=n /ovem+er 8 198& t,e <=)* *dministrator informed *I7C t,at its motion for e1tension of time .as granted.
=n /ovem+er 1& 198& claimants filed an o--osition to t,e motions for e1tension of time and as8ed t,at *I7C
and 7RII +e declared in default for failure to file t,eir ans.ers.
=n /ovem+er 9' 198& *I7C and 7RII filed a 2Comment2 -raying among ot,er reliefs t,at claimants s,ould +e
ordered to amend t,eir com-laint.
=n ;ecem+er 9: 198& t,e <=)* *dministrator issued an order directing *I7C and 7RII to file t,eir ans.ers
.it,in ten days from recei-t of t,e order.
=n >e+ruary 9: 1985 *I7C and 7RII a--ealed to /(RC see8ing t,e reversal of t,e said order of t,e <=)*
*dministrator. Claimants o--osed t,e a--eal claiming t,at it .as dilatory and -raying t,at *I7C and 7RII +e
declared in default.
=n *-ril 9 1985 t,e original claimants filed an 2*mended Com-laint andIor <osition <a-er2 dated Carc, 9&
1985 adding ne. demands: namely t,e -ayment of overtime -ay e1tra nig,t .or8 -ay annual leave differential
-ay leave indemnity -ay retirement and savings +enefits and t,eir s,are of forfeitures (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo
--. 1&31%#. =n *-ril 15 1985 t,e <=)* *dministrator directed *I7C to file its ans.er to t,e amended com-laint
(G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo -. 9'#.
=n Cay 98 1985 claimants filed an 2!rgent Cotion for "ummary Judgment.2 =n t,e same day t,e <=)*
issued an order directing *I7C and 7RII to file t,eir ans.ers to t,e 2*mended Com-laint2 ot,er.ise t,ey .ould
+e deemed to ,ave .aived t,eir rig,t to -resent evidence and t,e case .ould +e resolved on t,e +asis of
com-lainant5s evidence.
=n June 5 1985 *I7C countered .it, a 2Cotion to ;ismiss as Im-ro-er Class "uit and Cotion for 7ill of
<articulars Re: *mended Com-laint dated Carc, 9& 1985.2 Claimants o--osed t,e motions.
=n "e-tem+er & 1985 t,e <=)* *dministrator reiterated ,is directive to *I7C and 7RII to file t,eir ans.ers in
<=)* Case /o. (38&3'%3555.
=n "e-tem+er 18 1985 *I7C filed its second a--eal to t,e /(RC toget,er .it, a -etition for t,e issuance of a
.rit of in4unction. =n "e-tem+er 19 1985 /(RC en4oined t,e <=)* *dministrator from ,earing t,e la+or cases
and sus-ended t,e -eriod for t,e filing of t,e ans.ers of *I7C and 7RII.
=n "e-tem+er 19 1985 claimants as8ed t,e <=)* *dministrator to include additional claimants in t,e case and
to investigate alleged .rongdoings of 7RII *I7C and t,eir res-ective la.yers.
=n =cto+er 1' 1985 Romeo <atag and t.o co3claimants filed a com-laint (<=)* Case /o. (38531'3:::#
against *I7C and 7RII .it, t,e <=)* demanding monetary claims similar to t,ose su+4ect of <=)* Case /o.
(38&3'%3555. In t,e same mont, "olomon Reyes also filed ,is o.n com-laint (<=)* Case /o. (38531'3::9#
against *I7C and 7RII.
=n =cto+er 1: 1985 t,e la. firm of >lorante C. de Castro Q *ssociates as8ed for t,e su+stitution of t,e original
counsel of record and t,e cancellation of t,e s-ecial -o.ers of attorney given t,e original counsel.
=n ;ecem+er 19 1985 *tty. ;el Cundo filed in /(RC a notice of t,e claim to enforce attorney5s lien.
=n Cay 99 198% *tty. ;e Castro filed a com-laint for money claims (<=)* Case /o. 8%3'53&%'# in +e,alf of 11
claimants including 7ienvenido Cadalin a claimant in <=)* Case /o. 8&3'%3555.
=n ;ecem+er 19 198% t,e /(RC dismissed t,e t.o a--eals filed on >e+ruary 9: 1985 and "e-tem+er 18
1985 +y *I7C and 7RII.
In narrating t,e -roceedings of t,e la+or cases +efore t,e <=)* *dministrator it is not amiss to mention t,at t.o
cases .ere filed in t,e "u-reme Court +y t,e claimants namely N G.R. /o. :91$9 on "e-tem+er 9% 1985 and
*dministrative Case /o. 9858 on Carc, 18 198%. =n Cay 1$ 198: t,e "u-reme Court issued a resolution in
*dministrative Case /o. 9858 directing t,e <=)* *dministrator to resolve t,e issues raised in t,e motions and
o--ositions filed in <=)* Cases /os. (38&3'%3555 and (38%3'53&%' and to decide t,e la+or cases .it,
deli+erate dis-atc,.
*I7C also filed a -etition in t,e "u-reme Court (G.R. /o. :8&89# @uestioning t,e =rder dated "e-tem+er &
1985 of t,e <=)* *dministrator. "aid order re@uired 7RII and *I7C to ans.er t,e amended com-laint in <=)*
Case /o. (38&3'%3555. In a resolution dated /ovem+er 9 198: .e dismissed t,e -etition +y informing *I7C
t,at all its tec,nical o+4ections may -ro-erly +e resolved in t,e ,earings +efore t,e <=)*.
Com-laints .ere also filed +efore t,e =m+udsman. 0,e first .as filed on "e-tem+er 99 1988 +y claimant
Hermie *rguelles and 18 co3claimants against t,e <=)* *dministrator and several /(RC Commissioners. 0,e
=m+udsman merely referred t,e com-laint to t,e "ecretary of (a+or and )m-loyment .it, a re@uest for t,e
early dis-osition of <=)* Case /o. (38&3'%3555. 0,e second .as filed on *-ril 98 1989 +y claimants )migdio
<. 7autista and Rolando R. (o+eta c,arging *I7C and 7RII for violation of la+or and social legislations. 0,e t,ird
.as filed +y Jose R. "antos Ca1imino /. 0ali+sao and *mado 7. 7ruce denouncing *I7C and 7RII of violations
of la+or la.s.
=n January 1$ 198: *I7C filed a motion for reconsideration of t,e /(RC Resolution dated ;ecem+er 19 198%.
=n January 1& 198: *I7C reiterated +efore t,e <=)* *dministrator its motion for sus-ension of t,e -eriod for
filing an ans.er or motion for e1tension of time to file t,e same until t,e resolution of its motion for
reconsideration of t,e order of t,e /(RC dismissing t,e t.o a--eals. =n *-ril 98 198: /(RC en !anc denied
t,e motion for reconsideration.
*t t,e ,earing on June 19 198: *I7C su+mitted its ans.er to t,e com-laint. *t t,e same ,earing t,e -arties
.ere given a -eriod of 15 days from said date .it,in .,ic, to su+mit t,eir res-ective -osition -a-ers. =n June
9& 198: claimants filed t,eir 2!rgent Cotion to "tri8e =ut *ns.er2 alleging t,at t,e ans.er .as filed out of time.
=n June 99 198: claimants filed t,eir 2"u--lement to !rgent Canifestational Cotion2 to com-ly .it, t,e <=)*
=rder of June 19 198:. =n >e+ruary 9& 1988 *I7C and 7RII su+mitted t,eir -osition -a-er. =n Carc, & 1988
claimants filed t,eir 2x)Parte Cotion to )1-unge from t,e Records2 t,e -osition -a-er of *I7C and 7RII
claiming t,at it .as filed out of time.
=n "e-tem+er 1 1988 t,e claimants re-resented +y *tty. ;e Castro filed t,eir memorandum in <=)* Case /o.
(38%3'53&%'. =n "e-tem+er % 1988 *I7C and 7RII su+mitted t,eir "u--lemental Cemorandum. =n "e-tem+er
19 1988 7RII filed its 2Re-ly to Com-lainant5s Cemorandum.2 =n =cto+er 9% 1988 claimants su+mitted t,eir
2x)Parte Canifestational Cotion and Counter3"u--lemental Cotion2 toget,er .it, &&% individual contracts of
em-loyments and service records. =n =cto+er 9: 1988 *I7C and 7RII filed a 2Consolidated Re-ly.2
=n January $' 1989 t,e <=)* *dministrator rendered ,is decision in <=)* Case /o. (38&3'%3555 and t,e
ot,er consolidated cases .,ic, a.arded t,e amount of R89&%59.&& in favor of only $9& com-lainants.
=n >e+ruary 1' 1989 claimants su+mitted t,eir 2*--eal Cemorandum >or <artial *--eal2 from t,e decision of
t,e <=)*. =n t,e same day *I7C also filed its motion for reconsideration andIor a--eal in addition to t,e
2/otice of *--eal2 filed earlier on >e+ruary % 1989 +y anot,er counsel for *I7C.
=n >e+ruary 1: 1989 claimants filed t,eir 2*ns.er to *--eal2 -raying for t,e dismissal of t,e a--eal of *I7C
and 7RII.
=n Carc, 15 1989 claimants filed t,eir 2"u--lement to Com-lainants5 *--eal Cemorandum2 toget,er .it,
t,eir 2ne.ly discovered evidence2 consisting of -ayroll records.
=n *-ril 5 1989 *I7C and 7RII su+mitted to /(RC t,eir 2Canifestation2 stating among ot,er matters t,at t,ere
.ere only :98 named claimants. =n *-ril 9' 1989 t,e claimants filed t,eir 2Counter3Canifestation2 alleging
t,at t,ere .ere 1:%: of t,em.
=n July 9: 1989 claimants filed t,eir 2!rgent Cotion for )1ecution2 of t,e ;ecision dated January $' 1989 on
t,e grounds t,at 7RII ,ad failed to a--eal on time and *I7C ,ad not -osted t,e su-ersedeas +ond in t,e
amount of R89&%59.&&.
=n ;ecem+er 9$ 1989 claimants filed anot,er motion to resolve t,e la+or cases.
=n *ugust 91 199' claimants filed t,eir 2Canifestational Cotion2 -raying t,at all t,e 1:%: claimants +e
a.arded t,eir monetary claims for failure of -rivate res-ondents to file t,eir ans.ers .it,in t,e reglamentary
-eriod re@uired +y la..
=n "e-tem+er 9 1991 /(RC -romulgated its Resolution dis-osing as follo.s:
BH)R)>=R) -remises considered t,e ;ecision of t,e <=)* in t,ese consolidated
cases is modified to t,e e1tent and in accordance .it, t,e follo.ing dis-ositions:
1. 0,e claims of t,e 9& com-lainants identified and listed in *nne1 2*2
,ereof are dismissed for ,aving -rescri+edG
9. Res-ondents *I7C and 7ro.n Q Root are ,ere+y ordered 4ointly and
severally to -ay t,e 1&9 com-lainants identified and listed in *nne1 272
,ereof t,e -eso e@uivalent at t,e time of -ayment of t,e total amount
in !" dollars indicated o--osite t,eir res-ective namesG
$. 0,e a.ards given +y t,e <=)* to t,e 19 com-lainants classified and
listed in *nne1 2C2 ,ereof .,o a--ear to ,ave .or8ed else.,ere t,an
in 7a,rain are ,ere+y set aside.
&. *ll claims ot,er t,an t,ose indicated in *nne1 272 including t,ose for
overtime .or8 and favora+ly granted +y t,e <=)* are ,ere+y
dismissed for lac8 of su+stantial evidence in su--ort t,ereof or are
+eyond t,e com-etence of t,is Commission to -ass u-on.
In addition t,is Commission in t,e e1ercise of its -o.ers and aut,ority under *rticle
918(c# of t,e (a+or Code as amended +y R.*. %:15 ,ere+y directs (a+or *r+iter
>atima J. >ranco of t,is Commission to summon -arties conduct ,earings and receive
evidence as e1-editiously as -ossi+le and t,ereafter su+mit a .ritten re-ort to t,is
Commission (>irst ;ivision# of t,e -roceedings ta8en regarding t,e claims of t,e
follo.ing:
(a# com-lainants identified and listed in *nne1 2;2 attac,ed and made
an integral -art of t,is Resolution .,ose claims .ere dismissed +y t,e
<=)* for lac8 of -roof of em-loyment in 7a,rain (t,ese com-lainants
num+ering %8$ are listed in -ages 1$ to 9$ of t,e decision of <=)*
su+4ect of t,e a--eals# and
(+# com-lainants identified and listed in *nne1 2)2 attac,ed and made
an integral -art of t,is Resolution .,ose a.ards decreed +y t,e <=)*
to =ur mind are not su--orted +y su+stantial evidence2 (G.R. /o.
1'&::%G Rollo --. 11$3115G G.R. /os. 1'&91131& --. 8538:G G.R. /os.
1'5'993$1 --. 19'3199#.
=n /ovem+er 9: 1991 claimant *mado ". 0olentino and 19
co3claimants .,o .ere former clients of *tty. ;el Cundo filed a -etition for certiorari .it, t,e "u-reme Court
(G.R. /os. 19':&13&&#. 0,e -etition .as dismissed in a resolution dated January 9: 1999.
0,ree motions for reconsideration of t,e "e-tem+er 9 1991 Resolution of t,e /(RC .ere filed. 0,e first +y t,e
claimants re-resented +y *tty. ;el CundoG t,e second +y t,e claimants re-resented +y *tty. ;e CastroG and t,e
t,ird +y *I7C and 7RII.
In its Resolution dated Carc, 9& 1999 /(RC denied all t,e motions for reconsideration.
Hence t,ese -etitions filed +y t,e claimants re-resented +y *tty. ;el Cundo (G.R. /o. 1'&::%# t,e claimants
re-resented +y *tty. ;e Castro (G.R. /os. 1'&91131&# and +y *I7C and 7RII (G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9#.
II
Compromise A'reements
7efore t,is Court t,e claimants re-resented +y *tty. ;e Castro and *I7C and 7RII ,ave su+mitted from time to
time com-romise agreements for our a--roval and 4ointly moved for t,e dismissal of t,eir res-ective -etitions
insofar as t,e claimants3-arties to t,e com-romise agreements .ere concerned ("ee *nne1 * for list of
claimants .,o signed @uitclaims#.
0,us t,e follo.ing manifestations t,at t,e -arties ,ad arrived at a com-romise agreement and t,e
corres-onding motions for t,e a--roval of t,e agreements .ere filed +y t,e -arties and a--roved +y t,e Court:
1# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant )migdio *+ar@ue6 and &: co3
claimants dated "e-tem+er 9 1999 (G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo --. 9%$3&'%G G.R.
/os. 1'5'993$9 Rollo --.
&:'3%15#G
9# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving -etitioner 7ienvenido Cadalin and 89 co3
-etitioners dated "e-tem+er $ 1999 (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. $%&35':#G
$# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant Jose
C. *+an and $% co3claimants dated "e-tem+er 1: 1999 (G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 Rollo
--. %1$3:99G G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 5183%9%G G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo --.
&':351%#G
&# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant *ntonio 0. *nglo and 1: co3
claimants dated =cto+er 1& 1999 (G.R. /os.
1'5'993$9 Rollo --. ::838&$G G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. %5'3:1$G G.R. /os.
1'&91131& Rollo --. 5$'359'#G
5# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant ;ionisio 7o+ongo and % co3
claimants dated January 15 199$ (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 81$38$%G G.R. /os.
1'&91131& Rollo --. %993%59#G
%# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant Lalerio *. )vangelista and & co3
claimants dated Carc, 1' 199$ (G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo --. :$13:&%G G.R. /o.
1'&::% Rollo --. 181531899#G
:# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimants <alconeri 7anaag and 5 co3
claimants dated Carc, 1: 199$ (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 1%5:31:'$G G.R. /os.
1'&91131& Rollo --. %553%:5#G
8# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant 7en4amin *m+rosio and 15 ot,er
co3claimants dated Cay & 199$ (G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 Rollo --. 9'%395%G G.R. /os.
1'&91131& Rollo --. %:93:99G G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 1::$3181&#G
9# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving Lalerio )vangelista and $ co3claimants
dated Cay 1' 199$ (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 181531899#G
1'# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving -etitioner ?uiterio R. *gudo and $% co3
claimants dated June 1& 199$ (G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 Rollo --. 9:&3119'G G.R. /os.
1'&91131& Rollo --. :&838%&G G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 1'%%3118$#G
11# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant *rnaldo J. *lon6o and 19 co3
claimants dated July 99 199$ (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 11:$319$5G G.R. /os.
1'5'993$9 Rollo --. 119$3195%G G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo --. 89%3959#G
19# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant Ricardo C. ;ayrit and 9 co3
claimants dated "e-tem+er : 199$ (G.R. /os.
1'5'993$9 Rollo --. 19%%319:8G G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 19&$3195&G G.R. /os.
1'&91131& Rollo --. 9:9398&#G
1$# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving claimant ;ante C. *ceres and $: co3
claimants dated "e-tem+er 8 199$ (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 195:31$:5G G.R. /os.
1'&91131& Rollo --. 98:311'5G G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 Rollo --. 198'31$9:#G
1&# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving Livencio L. *+ella and 9: co3claimants
dated January 1' 199& (G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 Rollo Lol. II#G
15# Joint Canifestation and Cotion involving ;omingo 7. "olano and si1 co3claimants
dated *ugust 95 199& (G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9G G.R. /o. 1'&::%G G.R. /os. 1'&91131&#.
III
0,e facts as found +y t,e /(RC are as follo.s:
Be ,ave ta8en -ainsta8ing efforts to sift over t,e more t,an fifty volumes no.
com-rising t,e records of t,ese cases. >rom t,e records it a--ears t,at t,e
com-lainants3a--ellants allege t,at t,ey .ere recruited +y res-ondent3a--ellant *I7C
for its accredited foreign -rinci-al 7ro.n Q Root on various dates from 19:5 to 198$.
0,ey .ere all de-loyed at various -ro4ects underta8en +y 7ro.n Q Root in several
countries in t,e Ciddle )ast suc, as "audi *ra+ia (i+ya !nited *ra+ )mirates and
7a,rain as .ell as in "out,east *sia in Indonesia and Calaysia.
Having +een officially -rocessed as overseas contract .or8ers +y t,e <,ili--ine
Government all t,e individual com-lainants signed standard overseas em-loyment
contracts (Records Lols. 953$9. Hereafter reference to t,e records .ould +e s-aringly
made considering t,eir c,aotic arrangement# .it, *I7C +efore t,eir de-arture from t,e
<,ili--ines. 0,ese overseas em-loyment contracts invaria+ly contained t,e follo.ing
relevant terms and conditions.
<*R0 7 N
(1# )m-loyment <osition Classification :NNNNNNNNN
(Code# :NNNNNNNNN
(9# Com-any )m-loyment "tatus :NNNNNNNNN
($# ;ate of )m-loyment to Commence on :NNNNNNNNN
(&# 7asic Bor8ing Hours <er Bee8 :NNNNNNNNN
(5# 7asic Bor8ing Hours <er Cont, :NNNNNNNNN
(%# 7asic Hourly Rate :NNNNNNNNN
(:# =vertime Rate <er Hour :NNNNNNNNN
(8# <ro4ected <eriod of "ervice
("u+4ect to C(1# of t,is OsicP# :NNNNNNNNN
Cont,s andIor
Jo+ Com-letion
111 111 111
$. H=!R" => B=RD */; C=C<)/"*0I=/
a# 0,e )m-loyee is em-loyed at t,e ,ourly rate and overtime rate as set out in <art 7 of
t,is ;ocument.
+# 0,e ,ours of .or8 s,all +e t,ose set fort, +y t,e )m-loyer and )m-loyer may at ,is
sole o-tion c,ange or ad4ust suc, ,ours as may+e deemed necessary from time to
time.
&. 0)RCI/*0I=/
a# /ot.it,standing any ot,er terms and conditions of t,is agreement t,e )m-loyer may
at ,is sole discretion terminate em-loyee5s service .it, cause under t,is agreement at
any time. If t,e )m-loyer terminates t,e services of t,e )m-loyee under t,is *greement
+ecause of t,e com-letion or termination or sus-ension of t,e .or8 on .,ic, t,e
)m-loyee5s services .ere +eing utili6ed or +ecause of a reduction in force due to a
decrease in sco-e of suc, .or8 or +y c,ange in t,e ty-e of construction of suc, .or8.
0,e )m-loyer .ill +e res-onsi+le for ,is return trans-ortation to ,is country of origin.
/ormally on t,e most e1-editious air route economy class accommodation.
111 111 111
1'. L*C*0I=/I"ICD ()*L) 7)/)>I0"
a# *fter one (1# year of continuous service andIor satisfactory com-letion of contract
em-loyee s,all +e entitled to 193days vacation leave .it, -ay. 0,is s,all +e com-uted at
t,e +asic .age rate. >ractions of a year5s service .ill +e com-uted on a pro)rata +asis.
+# "ic8 leave of 153days s,all +e granted to t,e em-loyee for every year of service for
non3.or8 connected in4uries or illness. If t,e em-loyee failed to avail of suc, leave
+enefits t,e same s,all +e forfeited at t,e end of t,e year in .,ic, said sic8 leave is
granted.
11. 7=/!"
* +onus of 9'S (for offs,ore .or8# of gross income .ill +e accrued and -aya+le only
u-on satisfactory com-letion of t,is contract.
19. =>>;*F <*F
0,e sevent, day of t,e .ee8 s,all +e o+served as a day of rest .it, 8 ,ours regular
-ay. If .or8 is -erformed on t,is day all ,ours .or8 s,all +e -aid at t,e -remium rate.
Ho.ever t,is offday -ay -rovision is a--lica+le only .,en t,e la.s of t,e Host Country
re@uire -ayments for rest day.
In t,e "tate of 7a,rain .,ere some of t,e individual com-lainants .ere de-loyed His
Ca4esty Isa 7in "alman *l Daifa *mir of 7a,rain issued ,is *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ on
June 1% 19:% ot,er.ise 8no.n as t,e (a+our (a. for t,e <rivate "ector (Records Lol.
18#. 0,is decree too8 effect on *ugust 1% 19:%. "ome of t,e -rovisions of *miri ;ecree
/o. 9$ t,at are relevant to t,e claims of t,e com-lainants3a--ellants are as follo.s
(italics su--lied only for em-,asis#:
*rt. :9: . . . A *orker shall receive pa#ment for each extra hour
equivalent to his *a'e entitlement increased +y a minimum of t.enty3
five per centum t,ereof for ,ours .or8ed during t,e dayG and !# a
minimum of fift# per centum thereof for hours *orked durin' the ni'ht
.,ic, s,all +e deemed to +eing from seven o5cloc8 in t,e evening until
seven o5cloc8 in t,e morning. . . .
*rt. 8': >riday s,all +e deemed to +e a .ee8ly day of rest on full -ay.
. . . an emplo#er ma# require a *orker, .it, ,is consent, to *ork on his
*eekl# da# of rest if circumstances so re@uire and in respect of *hich
an additional sum equivalent to +,-. of his normal *a'e shall !e paid
to him. . . .
*rt. 81: . . . /hen conditions of *ork require the *orker to *ork on an#
official holida#, he shall !e paid an additional sum equivalent to +,-.
of his normal *a'e.
*rt. 8&: ver# *orker *ho has completed one #ear0s continuous service
*ith his emplo#er shall !e entitled to leave on full pa# for a period of not
less than 1+ da#s for each #ear increased to a period not less than 12
da#s after five continuous #ears of service.
* .or8er s,all +e entitled to suc, leave u-on a quantum meruit in
res-ect of t,e -ro-ortion of ,is service in t,at year.
*rt. 1':: * contract of em-loyment made for a -eriod of indefinite
duration may +e terminated +y eit,er -arty t,ereto after giving t,e ot,er
-arty t,irty days5 -rior notice +efore suc, termination in *ritin' in
res-ect of mont,ly -aid .or8ers and fifteen days5 notice in res-ect of
ot,er .or8ers. 3he part# terminatin' a contract *ithout 'ivin' the
required notice shall pa# to the other part# compensation equivalent to
the amount of *a'es pa#a!le to the *orker for the period of such notice
or the unexpired portion thereof.
*rt. 111: . . . t,e em-loyer concerned s,all -ay to suc, .or8er u-on
termination of em-loyment a leavin' indemnit# for the period of his
emplo#ment calculated on the !asis of fifteen da#s0 *a'es for each
#ear of the first three #ears of service and of one month0s *a'es for
each #ear of service thereafter. "uc, .or8er s,all +e entitled to
-ayment of leaving indemnity u-on a quantum meruit in -ro-ortion to
t,e -eriod of ,is service com-leted .it,in a year.
*ll t,e individual com-lainants3a--ellants ,ave already +een re-atriated
to t,e <,ili--ines at t,e time of t,e filing of t,ese cases (R.R. /o.
1'&::% Rollo --. 593%5#.
IL
0,e issues raised +efore and resolved +y t,e /(RC .ere:
(irst: N B,et,er or not com-lainants are entitled to t,e +enefits -rovided +y *miri
;ecree /o. 9$ of 7a,rainG
(a# B,et,er or not t,e com-lainants .,o ,ave .or8ed in 7a,rain are
entitled to t,e a+ove3mentioned +enefits.
(+# B,et,er or not *rt. && of t,e same ;ecree (allegedly -rescri+ing a
more favora+le treatment of alien em-loyees# +ars com-lainants from
en4oying its +enefits.
4econd: N *ssuming t,at *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 7a,rain is a--lica+le in t,ese cases
.,et,er or not com-lainants5 claim for t,e +enefits -rovided t,erein ,ave -rescri+ed.
3hird: N B,et,er or not t,e instant cases @ualify as a class suit.
(ourth: N B,et,er or not t,e -roceedings conducted +y t,e <=)* as .ell as t,e
decision t,at is t,e su+4ect of t,ese a--eals conformed .it, t,e re@uirements of due
-rocessG
(a# B,et,er or not t,e res-ondent3a--ellant .as denied its rig,t to due
-rocessG
(+# B,et,er or not t,e admission of evidence +y t,e <=)* after t,ese
cases .ere su+mitted for decision .as validG
(c# B,et,er or not t,e <=)* ac@uired 4urisdiction over 7ro.n Q Root
International Inc.G
(d# B,et,er or not t,e 4udgment a.ards are su--orted +y su+stantial
evidenceG
(e# B,et,er or not t,e a.ards +ased on t,e averages and formula
-resented +y t,e com-lainants3a--ellants are su--orted +y su+stantial
evidenceG
(f# B,et,er or not t,e <=)* a.arded sums +eyond .,at t,e
com-lainants3a--ellants -rayed forG and if so .,et,er or not t,ese
a.ards are valid.
(ifth: N B,et,er or not t,e <=)* erred in ,olding res-ondents *I7C and 7ro.n Q Root
4ointly are severally lia+le for t,e 4udgment a.ards des-ite t,e alleged finding t,at t,e
former .as t,e em-loyer of t,e com-lainantsG
(a# B,et,er or not t,e <=)* ,as ac@uired 4urisdiction over 7ro.n Q
RootG
(+# B,et,er or not t,e undis-uted fact t,at *I7C .as a licensed
construction contractor -recludes a finding t,at 7ro.n Q Root is lia+le
for com-lainants claims.
4ixth: N B,et,er or not t,e <=)* *dministrator5s failure to ,old res-ondents in default
constitutes a reversi+le error.
4eventh: N B,et,er or not t,e <=)* *dministrator erred in dismissing t,e follo.ing
claims:
a. !ne1-ired -ortion of contractG
+. Interest earnings of 0ravel and Reserve >undG
c. Retirement and "avings <lan +enefitsG
d. Bar Kone +onus or -remium -ay of at least 1''S of +asic -ayG
e. *rea ;ifferential <ayG
f. *ccrued interests on all t,e un-aid +enefitsG
g. "alary differential -ayG
,. Bage differential -ayG
i. Refund of """ -remiums not remitted to """G
4. Refund of .it,,olding ta1 not remitted to 7IRG
8. >ringe +enefits under 7 Q R5s 2* "ummary of )m-loyee 7enefits2
(*nne1 2?2 of *mended Com-laint#G
l. Coral and e1em-lary damagesG
m. *ttorney5s fees of at least ten -ercent of t,e 4udgment a.ardG
n. =t,er reliefs li8e sus-ending andIor cancelling t,e license to recruit
of *I7C and t,e accreditation of 7 Q R issued +y <=)*G
o. <enalty for violations of *rticle $& (-ro,i+ited -ractices# not
e1cluding re-ortorial re@uirements t,ereof.
i'hth: N B,et,er or not t,e <=)* *dministrator erred in not dismissing <=)* Case
/o. ((# 8%3%53&%' on t,e ground of multi-licity of suits (G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo --.
95399 51355#.
*nent t,e first issue /(RC set aside "ection 1 Rule 199 of t,e 1989 Revised Rules on )vidence governing t,e
-leading and -roof of a foreign la. and admitted in evidence a sim-le co-y of t,e 7a,rain5s *miri ;ecree /o. 9$
of 19:% ((a+our (a. for t,e <rivate "ector#. /(RC invo8ed *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines
vesting on t,e Commission am-le discretion to use every and all reasona+le means to ascertain t,e facts in
eac, case .it,out regard to t,e tec,nicalities of la. or -rocedure. /(RC agreed .it, t,e <=)* *dministrator
t,at t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ +eing more favora+le and +eneficial to t,e .or8ers s,ould form -art of t,e
overseas em-loyment contract of t,e com-lainants.
/(RC ,o.ever ,eld t,at t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ a--lied only to t,e claimants .,o .or8ed in 7a,rain and set
aside a.ards of t,e <=)* *dministrator in favor of t,e claimants .,o .or8ed else.,ere.
=n t,e second issue /(RC ruled t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod for t,e filing of t,e claims of t,e com-lainants .as
t,ree years as -rovided in *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines and not ten years as -rovided in
*rticle 11&& of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines nor one year as -rovided in t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:%.
=n t,e t,ird issue /(RC agreed .it, t,e <=)* *dministrator t,at t,e la+or cases cannot +e treated as a class
suit for t,e sim-le reason t,at not all t,e com-lainants .or8ed in 7a,rain and t,erefore t,e su+4ect matter of t,e
action t,e claims arising from t,e 7a,rain la. is not of common or general interest to all t,e com-lainants.
=n t,e fourt, issue /(RC found at least t,ree infractions of t,e cardinal rules of administrative due -rocess:
namely (1# t,e failure of t,e <=)* *dministrator to consider t,e evidence -resented +y *I7C and 7RIIG (9#
some findings of fact .ere not su--orted +y su+stantial evidenceG and ($# some of t,e evidence u-on .,ic, t,e
decision .as +ased .ere not disclosed to *I7C and 7RII during t,e ,earing.
=n t,e fift, issue /(RC sustained t,e ruling of t,e <=)* *dministrator t,at 7RII and *I7C are solidarily lia+le
for t,e claims of t,e com-lainants and ,eld t,at 7RII .as t,e actual em-loyer of t,e com-lainants or at t,e very
least t,e indirect em-loyer .it, *I7C as t,e la+or contractor.
/(RC also ,eld t,at 4urisdiction over 7RII .as ac@uired +y t,e <=)* *dministrator t,roug, t,e summons
served on *I7C its local agent.
=n t,e si1t, issue /(RC ,eld t,at t,e <=)* *dministrator .as correct in denying t,e Cotion to ;eclare *I7C in
default.
=n t,e sevent, issue .,ic, involved ot,er money claims not +ased on t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ /(RC ruled:
(1# t,at t,e <=)* *dministrator ,as no 4urisdiction over t,e claims for refund of t,e """
-remiums and refund of .it,,olding ta1es and t,e claimants s,ould file t,eir claims for
said refund .it, t,e a--ro-riate government agenciesG
(9# t,e claimants failed to esta+lis, t,at t,ey are entitled to t,e claims .,ic, are not
+ased on t,e overseas em-loyment contracts nor t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:%G
($# t,at t,e <=)* *dministrator ,as no 4urisdiction over claims for moral and e1em-lary
damages and nonet,eless t,e +asis for granting said damages .as not esta+lis,edG
(&# t,at t,e claims for salaries corres-onding to t,e une1-ired -ortion of t,eir contract
may +e allo.ed if filed .it,in t,e t,ree3year -rescri-tive -eriodG
(5# t,at t,e allegation t,at com-lainants .ere -rematurely re-atriated -rior to t,e
e1-iration of t,eir overseas contract .as not esta+lis,edG and
(%# t,at t,e <=)* *dministrator ,as no 4urisdiction over t,e com-laint for t,e
sus-ension or cancellation of t,e *I7C5s recruitment license and t,e cancellation of t,e
accreditation of 7RII.
/(RC -assed su! silencio t,e last issue t,e claim t,at <=)* Case /o. ((# 8%3%53&%' s,ould ,ave +een
dismissed on t,e ground t,at t,e claimants in said case .ere also claimants in <=)* Case /o. ((# 8&3'%3555.
Instead of dismissing <=)* Case /o. ((# 8%3%53&%' t,e <=)* 4ust resolved t,e corres-onding claims in <=)*
Case /o. ((# 8&3'%3555. In ot,er .ords t,e <=)* did not -ass u-on t,e same claims t.ice.
L
5.R. No. +-6778
Claimants in G.R. /o. 1'&::% +ased t,eir -etition for certiorari on t,e follo.ing grounds:
(1# t,at t,ey .ere de-rived +y /(RC and t,e <=)* of t,eir rig,t to a s-eedy dis-osition
of t,eir cases as guaranteed +y "ection 1% *rticle III of t,e 198: Constitution. 0,e
<=)* *dministrator allo.ed -rivate res-ondents to file t,eir ans.ers in t.o years (on
June 19 198:# after t,e filing of t,e original com-laint (on *-ril 9 1985# and /(RC in
total disregard of its o.n rules affirmed t,e action of t,e <=)* *dministratorG
(9# t,at /(RC and t,e <=)* *dministrator s,ould ,ave declared *I7C and 7RII in
default and s,ould ,ave rendered summary 4udgment on t,e +asis of t,e -leadings and
evidence su+mitted +y claimantsG
($# t,e /(RC and <=)* *dministrator erred in not ,olding t,at t,e la+or cases filed +y
*I7C and 7RII cannot +e considered a class suitG
(&# t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod for t,e filing of t,e claims is ten yearsG and
(5# t,at /(RC and t,e <=)* *dministrator s,ould ,ave dismissed <=)* Case /o. (3
8%3'53&%' t,e case filed +y *tty. >lorante de Castro (Rollo --. $13&'#.
*I7C and 7RII commenting on t,e -etition in G.R. /o. 1'&::% argued:
(1# t,at t,ey .ere not res-onsi+le for t,e delay in t,e dis-osition of t,e la+or cases
considering t,e great difficulty of getting all t,e records of t,e more t,an 15''
claimants t,e -iece3meal filing of t,e com-laints and t,e addition of ,undreds of ne.
claimants +y -etitionersG
(9# t,at considering t,e num+er of com-laints and claimants it .as im-ossi+le to
-re-are t,e ans.ers .it,in t,e ten3day -eriod -rovided in t,e /(RC Rules t,at .,en
t,e motion to declare *I7C in default .as filed on July 19 198: said -arty ,ad already
filed its ans.er and t,at considering t,e staggering amount of t,e claims (more t,an
!"R5'''''''.''# and t,e com-licated issues raised +y t,e -arties t,e ten3day rule to
ans.er .as not fair and reasona+leG
($# t,at t,e claimants failed to refute /(RC5s finding t,at
t,ere .as no common or general interest in t,e su+4ect matter of t,e controversy N
.,ic, .as t,e a--lica+ility of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$. (i8e.ise t,e nature of t,e claims
varied some +eing +ased on salaries -ertaining to t,e une1-ired -ortion of t,e
contracts .,ile ot,ers +eing for -ure money claims. )ac, claimant demanded se-arate
claims -eculiar only to ,imself and de-ending u-on t,e -articular circumstances
o+taining in ,is caseG
(&# t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod for filing t,e claims is t,at -rescri+ed +y *rticle 991 of t,e
(a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines (t,ree years# and not t,e one -rescri+ed +y *rticle 11&&
of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines (ten years#G and
(5# t,at t,ey are not concerned .it, t,e issue of .,et,er <=)* Case /o. (38%3'53&%'
s,ould +e dismissed t,is +eing a -rivate @uarrel +et.een t,e t.o la+or la.yers (Rollo
--. 9993$'5#.
Attorne#0s $ien
=n /ovem+er 19 1999 *tty. Gerardo *. del Cundo moved to stri8e out t,e 4oint manifestations and motions of
*I7C and 7RII dated "e-tem+er 9 and 11 1999 claiming t,at all t,e claimants .,o entered into t,e
com-romise agreements su+4ect of said manifestations and motions .ere ,is clients and t,at *tty. >lorante C.
de Castro ,ad no rig,t to re-resent t,em in said agreements. He also claimed t,at t,e claimants .ere -aid less
t,an t,e a.ard given t,em +y /(RCG t,at *tty. ;e Castro collected additional attorney5s fees on to- of t,e 95S
.,ic, ,e .as entitled to receiveG and t,at t,e consent of t,e claimants to t,e com-romise agreements and
@uitclaims .ere -rocured +y fraud (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 8$8381'#. In t,e Resolution dated /ovem+er 9$
1999 t,e Court denied t,e motion to stri8e out t,e Joint Canifestations and Cotions dated "e-tem+er 9 and 11
1999 (G.R. /os. 1'&91131& Rollo --. %'83%'9#.
=n ;ecem+er 1& 1999 *tty. ;el Cundo filed a 2/otice and Claim to )nforce *ttorney5s (ien2 alleging t,at t,e
claimants .,o entered into com-romise agreements .it, *I7C and 7RII .it, t,e assistance of *tty. ;e Castro
,ad all signed a retainer agreement .it, ,is la. firm (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. %9$3%9&G 8$8315$5#.
Contempt of Court
=n >e+ruary 18 199$ an omni+us motion .as filed +y *tty. ;el Cundo to cite *tty. ;e Castro and *tty. Dat6
0ierra for contem-t of court and for violation of Canons 1 15 and 1% of t,e Code of <rofessional Res-onsi+ility.
0,e said la.yers allegedly misled t,is Court +y ma8ing it a--ear t,at t,e claimants .,o entered into t,e
com-romise agreements .ere re-resented +y *tty. ;e Castro .,en in fact t,ey .ere re-resented +y *tty. ;el
Cundo (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --. 15%'31%1&#.
=n "e-tem+er 9$ 199& *tty. ;el Cundo reiterated ,is c,arges against *tty. ;e Castro for unet,ical -ractices
and moved for t,e voiding of t,e @uitclaims su+mitted +y some of t,e claimants.
5.R. Nos. +-69++)+6
0,e claimants in G.R. /os. 1'&91131& +ased t,eir -etition for certiorari on t,e grounds t,at /(RC gravely
a+used its discretion .,en it: (1# a--lied t,e t,ree3year -rescri-tive -eriod under t,e (a+or Code of t,e
<,ili--inesG and (9# it denied t,e claimant5s formula +ased on an average overtime -ay of t,ree ,ours a day
(Rollo --. 18399#.
0,e claimants argue t,at said met,od .as -ro-osed +y 7RII itself during t,e negotiation for an amica+le
settlement of t,eir money claims in 7a,rain as s,o.n in t,e Cemorandum dated *-ril 1% 198$ of t,e Cinistry of
(a+or of 7a,rain (Rollo --. 91399#.
7RII and *I7C in t,eir Comment reiterated t,eir contention in G.R. /o. 1'&::% t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod in
t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines a s-ecial la. -revails over t,at -rovided in t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines a
general la..
*s to t,e memorandum of t,e Cinistry of (a+or of 7a,rain on t,e met,od of com-uting t,e overtime -ay 7RII
and *I7C claimed t,at t,ey .ere not +ound +y .,at a--eared t,erein +ecause suc, memorandum .as
-ro-osed +y a su+ordinate 7a,rain official and t,ere .as no s,o.ing t,at it .as a--roved +y t,e 7a,rain
Cinister of (a+or. (i8e.ise t,ey claimed t,at t,e averaging met,od .as discussed in t,e course of t,e
negotiation for t,e amica+le settlement of t,e dis-ute and any offer made +y a -arty t,erein could not +e used as
an admission +y ,im (Rollo --. 99839$%#.
5.R. Nos. +-,-19):1
In G.R. /os. 1'5'993$9 7RII and *I7C claim t,at /(RC gravely a+used its discretion .,en it: (1# enforced t,e
-rovisions of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% and not t,e terms of t,e em-loyment contractsG (9# granted claims
for ,oliday overtime and leave indemnity -ay and ot,er +enefits on evidence admitted in contravention of
-etitioner5s constitutional rig,t to due -rocessG and ($# ordered t,e <=)* *dministrator to ,old ne. ,earings for
t,e %8$ claimants .,ose claims ,ad +een dismissed for lac8 of -roof +y t,e <=)* *dministrator or /(RC itself.
(astly t,ey allege t,at assuming t,at t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% .as a--lica+le /(RC erred .,en it did
not a--ly t,e one3year -rescri-tion -rovided in said la. (Rollo --. 993$'#.
LI
5.R. No. +-6778; 5.R. Nos. +-69++)+6; 5.R. Nos. +-,-19):1
*ll t,e -etitions raise t,e common issue of -rescri-tion alt,oug, t,ey disagreed as to t,e time t,at s,ould +e
em+raced .it,in t,e -rescri-tive -eriod.
0o t,e <=)* *dministrator t,e -rescri-tive -eriod .as ten years a--lying *rticle 11&& of t,e Civil Code of t,e
<,ili--ines. /(RC +elieved ot,er.ise fi1ing t,e -rescri-tive -eriod at t,ree years as -rovided in *rticle 991 of
t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines.
0,e claimants in G.R. /o. 1'&::% and G.R. /os. 1'&91131& invo8ing different grounds insisted t,at /(RC
erred in ruling t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod a--lica+le to t,e claims .as t,ree years instead of ten years as found
+y t,e <=)* *dministrator.
0,e "olicitor General e1-ressed ,is -ersonal vie. t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod .as one year as -rescri+ed +y t,e
*miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% +ut ,e deferred to t,e ruling of /(RC t,at *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e
<,ili--ines .as t,e o-erative la..
0,e <=)* *dministrator ,eld t,e vie. t,at:
0,ese money claims (under *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code# refer to t,ose arising from
t,e em-loyer5s violation of t,e em-loyee5s rig,t as -rovided +y t,e (a+or Code.
In t,e instant case .,at t,e res-ondents violated are not t,e rig,ts of t,e .or8ers as
-rovided +y t,e (a+or Code +ut t,e -rovisions of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ issued in
7a,rain .,ic, ipso facto amended t,e .or8er5s contracts of em-loyment. Res-ondents
consciously failed to conform to t,ese -rovisions .,ic, s-ecifically -rovide for t,e
increase of t,e .or8er5s rate. It .as only after June $' 198$ four mont,s after t,e
+ro.n +uilders +roug,t a suit against 7 Q R in 7a,rain for t,is same claim .,en
res-ondent *I7C5s contracts ,ave undergone amendments in 7a,rain for t,e ne.
,iresIrene.als (Res-ondent5s )1,i+it :#.
Hence -remises considered t,e a--lica+le la. of -rescri-tion to t,is instant case is
*rticle 11&& of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines .,ic, -rovides:
*rt. 11&&. 0,e follo.ing actions may +e +roug,t .it,in ten years from
t,e time t,e cause of action accrues:
(1# !-on a .ritten contractG
(9# !-on an o+ligation created +y la.G
0,us ,erein money claims of t,e com-lainants against t,e res-ondents s,all -rescri+e
in ten years from *ugust 1% 19:%. Inasmuc, as all claims .ere filed .it,in t,e ten3year
-rescri-tive -eriod no claim suffered t,e infirmity of +eing -rescri+ed (G.R. /o. 1'&::%
Rollo 8939'#.
In overruling t,e <=)* *dministrator and ,olding t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod is t,ree years as -rovided in *rticle
991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines t,e /(RC argued as follo.s:
0,e (a+or Code -rovides t,at 2all money claims arising from em-loyer3em-loyee
relations . . . s,all +e filed .it,in t,ree years from t,e time t,e cause of action accruedG
ot,er.ise t,ey s,all +e forever +arred2 (*rt. 991 (a+or Code as amended#. 0,is t,ree3
year -rescri-tive -eriod s,all +e t,e one a--lied ,ere and .,ic, s,ould +e rec8oned
from t,e date of re-atriation of eac, individual com-lainant considering t,e fact t,at t,e
case is ,aving (sic# filed in t,is country. Be do not agree .it, t,e <=)* *dministrator
t,at t,is t,ree3year -rescri-tive -eriod a--lies only to money claims s-ecifically
recovera+le under t,e <,ili--ine (a+or Code. *rticle 991 gives no suc, indication.
(i8e.ise Be can not consider com-lainants5 causeIs of action to ,ave accrued from a
violation of t,eir em-loyment contracts. 0,ere .as no violationG t,e claims arise from t,e
+enefits of t,e la. of t,e country .,ere t,ey .or8ed. (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --.
9'391#.
*nent t,e a--lica+ility of t,e one3year -rescri-tive -eriod as -rovided +y t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% /(RC
o-ined t,at t,e a--lica+ility of said la. .as one of c,aracteri6ation i.e. .,et,er to c,aracteri6e t,e foreign la.
on -rescri-tion or statute of limitation as 2su+stantive2 or 2-rocedural.2 /(RC cited t,e decision in Bournias v.
Atlantic &aritime Compan# (99' >. 9d. 159 9d Cir. O1955P .,ere t,e issue .as t,e a--lica+ility of t,e <anama
(a+or Code in a case filed in t,e "tate of /e. For8 for claims arising from said Code. In said case t,e claims
.ould ,ave -rescri+ed under t,e <anamanian (a. +ut not under t,e "tatute of (imitations of /e. For8. 0,e
!.". Circuit Court of *--eals ,eld t,at t,e <anamanian (a. .as -rocedural as it .as not 2s-ecifically intended
to +e su+stantive2 ,ence t,e -rescri-tive -eriod -rovided in t,e la. of t,e forum s,ould a--ly. 0,e Court
o+served:
. . . *nd .,ere as ,ere .e are dealing .it, a statute of limitations of a foreign country
and it is not clear on t,e face of t,e statute t,at its -ur-ose .as to limit t,e
enforcea+ility outside as .ell as .it,in t,e foreign country concerned of t,e su+stantive
rig,ts to .,ic, t,e statute -ertains .e t,in8 t,at as a yardstic8 for determining .,et,er
t,at .as t,e -ur-ose t,is test is t,e most satisfactory one. It does not lead *merican
courts into t,e necessity of e1amining into t,e unfamiliar -eculiarities and refinements of
different foreign legal systems. . .
0,e court furt,er noted:
111 111 111
*--lying t,at test ,ere it a--ears to us t,at t,e li+elant is entitled to succeed for t,e
res-ondents ,ave failed to satisfy us t,at t,e <anamanian -eriod of limitation in
@uestion .as s-ecifically aimed against t,e -articular rig,ts .,ic, t,e li+elant see8s to
enforce. 0,e <anama (a+or Code is a statute ,aving +road o+4ectives vi6: 20,e -resent
Code regulates t,e relations +et.een ca-ital and la+or -lacing t,em on a +asis of
social 4ustice so t,at .it,out in4uring any of t,e -arties t,ere may +e guaranteed for
la+or t,e necessary conditions for a normal life and to ca-ital an e@uita+le return to its
investment.2 In -ursuance of t,ese o+4ectives t,e Code gives la+orers various rig,ts
against t,eir em-loyers. *rticle %9$ esta+lis,es t,e -eriod of limitation for all suc, rig,ts
e1ce-t certain ones .,ic, are enumerated in *rticle %91. *nd t,ere is not,ing in t,e
record to indicate t,at t,e <anamanian legislature gave s-ecial consideration to t,e
im-act of *rticle %9$ u-on t,e -articular rig,ts soug,t to +e enforced ,ere as
distinguis,ed from t,e ot,er rig,ts to .,ic, t,at *rticle is also a--lica+le. Bere .e
confronted .it, t,e @uestion of .,et,er t,e limitation -eriod of *rticle %91 (.,ic, carves
out -articular rig,ts to +e governed +y a s,orter limitation -eriod# is to +e regarded as
2su+stantive2 or 2-rocedural2 under t,e rule of 2s-ecifity2 .e mig,t ,ave a different caseG
+ut ,ere on t,e surface of t,ings .e a--ear to +e dealing .it, a 2+road2 and not a
2s-ecific2 statute of limitations (G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo --.
9939&#.
Claimants in G.R. /os. 1'&91131& are of t,e vie. t,at *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines .,ic,
.as a--lied +y /(RC refers only to claims 2arising from t,e em-loyer5s violation of t,e em-loyee5s rig,t as
-rovided +y t,e (a+or Code.2 0,ey assert t,at t,eir claims are +ased on t,e violation of t,eir em-loyment
contracts as amended +y t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% and t,erefore t,e claims may +e +roug,t .it,in ten
years as -rovided +y *rticle 11&& of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines (Rollo G.R. /os. 1'&91131& --.
18391#. 0o +olster t,eir contention t,ey cite PA$A v. Philippine Airlines, <nc. :' "CR* 9&& (19:%#.
*I7C and 7RII insisting t,at t,e actions on t,e claims ,ave -rescri+ed under t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:%
argue t,at t,ere is in force in t,e <,ili--ines a 2+orro.ing la.2 .,ic, is "ection &8 of t,e Code of Civil
<rocedure and t,at .,ere suc, 8ind of la. e1ists it ta8es -recedence over t,e common3la. conflicts rule (G.R.
/o. 1'&::% Rollo --. &53&%#.
>irst to +e determined is .,et,er it is t,e 7a,rain la. on -rescri-tion of action +ased on t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$
of 19:% or a <,ili--ine la. on -rescri-tion t,at s,all +e t,e governing la..
*rticle 15% of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% -rovides:
* claim arising out of a contract of em-loyment s,all not +e actiona+le after t,e la-se of
one year from t,e date of t,e e1-iry of t,e contract. (G.R. /os. 1'5'993$1 Rollo -.
99%#.
*s a general rule a foreign -rocedural la. .ill not +e a--lied in t,e forum. <rocedural matters suc, as service
of -rocess 4oinder of actions -eriod and re@uisites for a--eal and so fort, are governed +y t,e la.s of t,e
forum. 0,is is true even if t,e action is +ased u-on a foreign su+stantive la. (Restatement of t,e Conflict of
(a.s "ec. %85G "alonga <rivate International (a. 1$1 O19:9P#.
* la. on -rescri-tion of actions is sui 'eneris in Conflict of (a.s in t,e sense t,at it may +e vie.ed eit,er as
-rocedural or su+stantive de-ending on t,e c,aracteri6ation given suc, a la..
0,us in Bournias v. Atlantic &aritime Compan#, supra, t,e *merican court a--lied t,e statute of limitations of
/e. For8 instead of t,e <anamanian la. after finding t,at t,ere .as no s,o.ing t,at t,e <anamanian la. on
-rescri-tion .as intended to +e su+stantive. 7eing considered merely a -rocedural la. even in <anama it ,as
to give .ay to t,e la. of t,e forum on -rescri-tion of actions.
Ho.ever t,e c,aracteri6ation of a statute into a -rocedural or su+stantive la. +ecomes irrelevant .,en t,e
country of t,e forum ,as a 2+orro.ing statute.2 "aid statute ,as t,e -ractical effect of treating t,e foreign statute
of limitation as one of su+stance (Goodric, Conflict of (a.s 159315$ O19$8P#. * 2+orro.ing statute2 directs t,e
state of t,e forum to a--ly t,e foreign statute of limitations to t,e -ending claims +ased on a foreign la. ("iegel
Conflicts 18$ O19:5P#. B,ile t,ere are several 8inds of 2+orro.ing statutes2 one form -rovides t,at an action
+arred +y t,e la.s of t,e -lace .,ere it accrued .ill not +e enforced in t,e forum even t,oug, t,e local statute
,as not run against it (Goodric, and "coles Conflict of (a.s 159315$ O19$8P#. "ection &8 of our Code of Civil
<rocedure is of t,is 8ind. "aid "ection -rovides:
If +y t,e la.s of t,e state or country .,ere t,e cause of action arose t,e action is
+arred it is also +arred in t,e <,ili--ines Islands.
"ection &8 ,as not +een re-ealed or amended +y t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines. *rticle 99:' of said Code
re-ealed only t,ose -rovisions of t,e Code of Civil <rocedures as to .,ic, .ere inconsistent .it, it. 0,ere is no
-rovision in t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines .,ic, is inconsistent .it, or contradictory to "ection &8 of t,e
Code of Civil <rocedure (<aras <,ili--ine Conflict of (a.s 1'& O:t, ed.P#.
In t,e lig,t of t,e 198: Constitution ,o.ever "ection &8 cannot +e enforced ex proprio vi'ore insofar as it
ordains t,e a--lication in t,is 4urisdiction of "ection 15% of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:%.
0,e courts of t,e forum .ill not enforce any foreign claim o+no1ious to t,e forum5s -u+lic -olicy (Canadian
/ort,ern Rail.ay Co. v. )ggen 959 !.". 55$ &' ". Ct. &'9 %& (. ed. :1$ O199'P#. 0o enforce t,e one3year
-rescri-tive -eriod of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% as regards t,e claims in @uestion .ould contravene t,e
-u+lic -olicy on t,e -rotection to la+or.
In t,e ;eclaration of <rinci-les and "tate <olicies t,e 198: Constitution em-,asi6ed t,at:
0,e state s,all -romote social 4ustice in all -,ases of national develo-ment. ("ec. 1'#.
0,e state affirms la+or as a -rimary social economic force. It s,all -rotect t,e rig,ts of
.or8ers and -romote t,eir .elfare ("ec. 18#.
In article TIII on "ocial Justice and Human Rig,ts t,e 198: Constitution -rovides:
"ec. $. 0,e "tate s,all afford full -rotection to la+or local and overseas organi6ed and
unorgani6ed and -romote full em-loyment and e@uality of em-loyment o--ortunities for
all.
Having determined t,at t,e a--lica+le la. on -rescri-tion is t,e <,ili--ine la. t,e ne1t @uestion is .,et,er t,e
-rescri-tive -eriod governing t,e filing of t,e claims is t,ree years as -rovided +y t,e (a+or Code or ten years
as -rovided +y t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines.
0,e claimants are of t,e vie. t,at t,e a--lica+le -rovision is *rticle 11&& of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines
.,ic, -rovides:
0,e follo.ing actions must +e +roug,t .it,in ten years from t,e time t,e rig,t of action
accrues:
(1# !-on a .ritten contractG
(9# !-on an o+ligation created +y la.G
($# !-on a 4udgment.
/(RC on t,e ot,er ,and +elieves t,at t,e a--lica+le -rovision is *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e
<,ili--ines .,ic, in -ertinent -art -rovides:
Coney claims3all money claims arising from em-loyer3em-loyee relations accruing
during t,e effectivity of t,is Code s,all +e filed .it,in t,ree ($# years from t,e time t,e
cause of action accrued ot,er.ise t,ey s,all +e forever +arred.
111 111 111
0,e case of Philippine Air $ines mplo#ees Association v. Philippine Air $ines, <nc. :' "CR* 9&& (19:%#
invo8ed +y t,e claimants in G.R. /os. 1'&91131& is ina--lica+le to t,e cases at +enc, (Rollo -. 91#. 0,e said
case involved t,e correct com-utation of overtime -ay as -rovided in t,e collective +argaining agreements and
not t,e )ig,t3Hour (a+or (a..
*s noted +y t,e Court: 20,at is -recisely .,y -etitioners did not ma8e any reference as to t,e com-utation for
overtime .or8 under t,e )ig,t3Hour (a+or (a. ("ecs. $ and & C* /o. &9&# and instead insisted t,at .or8
com-utation -rovided in t,e collective +argaining agreements +et.een t,e -arties +e o+served. "ince t,e claim
for -ay differentials is -rimarily anc,ored on t,e .ritten contracts +et.een t,e litigants t,e ten3year -rescri-tive
-eriod -rovided +y *rt. 11&&(1# of t,e /e. Civil Code s,ould govern.2
"ection :3a of t,e )ig,t3Hour (a+or (a. (C* /o. &&& as amended +y R.*. /o. 199$$# -rovides:
*ny action to enforce any cause of action under t,is *ct s,all +e commenced .it,in
t,ree years after t,e cause of action accrued ot,er.ise suc, action s,all +e forever
+arred . . . .
0,e court furt,er e1-lained:
0,e t,ree3year -rescri-tive -eriod fi1ed in t,e )ig,t3Hour (a+or (a. (C* /o. &&& as
amended# .ill a--ly if t,e claim for differentials for overtime .or8 is solely +ased on
said la. and not on a collective +argaining agreement or any ot,er contract. In t,e
instant case t,e claim for overtime com-ensation is not so muc, +ecause of
Common.ealt, *ct /o. &&& as amended +ut +ecause t,e claim is demanda+le rig,t of
t,e em-loyees +y reason of t,e a+ove3mentioned collective +argaining agreement.
"ection :3a of t,e )ig,t3Hour (a+or (a. -rovides t,e -rescri-tive -eriod for filing 2actions to enforce any cause
of action under said la..2 =n t,e ot,er ,and *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines -rovides t,e
-rescri-tive -eriod for filing 2money claims arising from em-loyer3em-loyee relations.2 0,e claims in t,e cases at
+enc, all arose from t,e em-loyer3em-loyee relations .,ic, is +roader in sco-e t,an claims arising from a
s-ecific la. or from t,e collective +argaining agreement.
0,e contention of t,e <=)* *dministrator t,at t,e t,ree3year -rescri-tive -eriod under *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or
Code of t,e <,ili--ines a--lies only to money claims s-ecifically recovera+le under said Code does not find
su--ort in t,e -lain language of t,e -rovision. /eit,er is t,e contention of t,e claimants in G.R. /os. 1'&91131&
t,at said *rticle refers only to claims 2arising from t,e em-loyer5s violation of t,e em-loyee5s rig,t2 as -rovided
+y t,e (a+or Code su--orted +y t,e facial reading of t,e -rovision.
LII
5.R. No. +-6778
*. *s to t,e first t.o grounds for t,e -etition in G.R. /o. 1'&::% claimants aver: (1# t,at .,ile t,eir com-laints
.ere filed on June % 198& .it, <=)* t,e case .as decided only on January $' 1989 a clear denial of t,eir
rig,t to a s-eedy dis-osition of t,e caseG and (9# t,at /(RC and t,e <=)* *dministrator s,ould ,ave declared
*I7C and 7RII in default (Rollo --.
$13$5#.
Claimants invo8e a ne. -rovision incor-orated in t,e 198: Constitution .,ic, -rovides:
"ec. 1%. *ll -ersons s,all ,ave t,e rig,t to a s-eedy dis-osition of t,eir cases +efore all
4udicial @uasi34udicial or administrative +odies.
It is true t,at t,e constitutional rig,t to 2a s-eedy dis-osition of cases2 is not limited to t,e accused in criminal
-roceedings +ut e1tends to all -arties in all cases including civil and administrative cases and in all
-roceedings including 4udicial and @uasi34udicial ,earings. Hence under t,e Constitution any -arty to a case
may demand e1-editious action on all officials .,o are tas8ed .it, t,e administration of 4ustice.
Ho.ever as ,eld in Ca!allero v. Alfonso, =r. 15$ "CR* 15$ (198:# 2s-eedy dis-osition of cases2 is a relative
term. Just li8e t,e constitutional guarantee of 2s-eedy trial2 accorded to t,e accused in all criminal -roceedings
2s-eedy dis-osition of cases2 is a fle1i+le conce-t. It is consistent .it, delays and de-ends u-on t,e
circumstances of eac, case. B,at t,e Constitution -ro,i+its are unreasona+le ar+itrary and o--ressive delays
.,ic, render rig,ts nugatory.
Ca!allero laid do.n t,e factors t,at may +e ta8en into consideration in determining .,et,er or not t,e rig,t to a
2s-eedy dis-osition of cases2 ,as +een violated t,us:
In t,e determination of .,et,er or not t,e rig,t to a 2s-eedy trial2 ,as +een violated
certain factors may +e considered and +alanced against eac, ot,er. 0,ese are lengt, of
delay reason for t,e delay assertion of t,e rig,t or failure to assert it and -re4udice
caused +y t,e delay. 0,e same factors may also +e considered in ans.ering 4udicial
in@uiry .,et,er or not a -erson officially c,arged .it, t,e administration of 4ustice ,as
violated t,e s-eedy dis-osition of cases.
(i8e.ise in 5on>ales v. 4andi'an!a#an 199 "CR* 998 (1991# .e ,eld:
It must +e ,ere em-,asi6ed t,at t,e rig,t to a s-eedy dis-osition of a case li8e t,e rig,t
to s-eedy trial is deemed violated only .,en t,e -roceeding is attended +y ve1atious
ca-ricious and o--ressive delaysG or .,en un4ustified -ost-onements of t,e trial are
as8ed for and secured or .,en .it,out cause or 4ustified motive a long -eriod of time is
allo.ed to ela-se .it,out t,e -arty ,aving ,is case tried.
"ince July 95 198& or a mont, after *I7C and 7RII .ere served .it, a co-y of t,e amended com-laint
claimants ,ad +een as8ing t,at *I7C and 7RII +e declared in default for failure to file t,eir ans.ers .it,in t,e
ten3day -eriod -rovided in "ection 1 Rule III of 7oo8 LI of t,e Rules and Regulations of t,e <=)*. *t t,at time
t,ere .as a -ending motion of *I7C and 7RII to stri8e out of t,e records t,e amended com-laint and t,e
2Com-liance2 of claimants to t,e order of t,e <=)* re@uiring t,em to su+mit a +ill of -articulars.
0,e cases at +enc, are not of t,e run3of3t,e3mill variety suc, t,at t,eir final dis-osition in t,e administrative
level after seven years from t,eir ince-tion cannot +e said to +e attended +y unreasona+le ar+itrary and
o--ressive delays as to violate t,e constitutional rig,ts to a s-eedy dis-osition of t,e cases of com-lainants.
0,e amended com-laint filed on June % 198& involved a total of 1:%: claimants. "aid com-laint ,ad undergone
several amendments t,e first +eing on *-ril $ 1985.
0,e claimants .ere ,ired on various dates from 19:5 to 198$. 0,ey .ere de-loyed in different areas one grou-
in and t,e ot,er grou-s outside of 7a,rain. 0,e monetary claims totalling more t,an !"R%5 million according to
*tty. ;el Cundo included:
1. !ne1-ired -ortion of contractG
9. Interest earnings of 0ravel and >undG
$. Retirement and "avings <lan +enefitG
&. Bar Kone +onus or -remium -ay of at least 1''S of +asic -ayG
5. *rea ;ifferential -ayG
%. *ccrued Interest of all t,e un-aid +enefitsG
:. "alary differential -ayG
8. Bage ;ifferential -ayG
9. Refund of """ -remiums not remitted to "ocial "ecurity "ystemG
1'. Refund of Bit,,olding 0a1 not remitted to 7ureau of Internal Revenue (7.I.R.#G
11. >ringe 7enefits under 7ro.n Q Root5s 2* "ummary of )m-loyees 7enefits consisting
of &$ -ages (*nne1 2?2 of *mended Com-laint#G
19. Coral and )1em-lary ;amagesG
1$. *ttorney5s fees of at least ten -ercent of amountsG
1&. =t,er reliefs li8e sus-ending andIor cancelling t,e license to recruit of *I7C and
issued +y t,e <=)*G and
15. <enalty for violation of *rticle $& (<ro,i+ited -ractices# not e1cluding re-ortorial
re@uirements t,ereof (/(RC Resolution "e-tem+er 9 1991 --. 18319G G.R. /o.
1'&::% Rollo --. :$3:&#.
Inasmuc, as t,e com-laint did not allege .it, sufficient definiteness and clarity of some facts t,e claimants
.ere ordered to com-ly .it, t,e motion of *I7C for a +ill of -articulars. B,en claimants filed t,eir 2Com-liance
and Canifestation2 *I7C moved to stri8e out t,e com-laint from t,e records for failure of claimants to su+mit a
-ro-er +ill of -articulars. B,ile t,e <=)* *dministrator denied t,e motion to stri8e out t,e com-laint ,e ordered
t,e claimants 2to correct t,e deficiencies2 -ointed out +y *I7C.
7efore an intelligent ans.er could +e filed in res-onse to t,e com-laint t,e records of em-loyment of t,e more
t,an 1:'' claimants ,ad to +e retrieved from various countries in t,e Ciddle )ast. "ome of t,e records dated as
far +ac8 as 19:5.
0,e ,earings on t,e merits of t,e claims +efore t,e <=)* *dministrator .ere interru-ted several times +y t,e
various a--eals first to /(RC and t,en to t,e "u-reme Court.
*side from t,e inclusion of additional claimants t.o ne. cases .ere filed against *I7C and 7RII on =cto+er 1'
1985 (<=)* Cases /os.
(38531'3::: and (38531'3::9#. *not,er com-laint .as filed on Cay 99 198% (<=)* Case /o. (38%3'53&%'#.
/(RC in e1as-eration noted t,at t,e e1act num+er of claimants ,ad never +een com-letely esta+lis,ed
(Resolution "e-t. 9 1991 G.R. /o. 1'&::% Rollo -. 5:#. *ll t,e t,ree ne. cases .ere consolidated .it, <=)*
Case /o. (38&3'%3555.
/(RC +lamed t,e -arties and t,eir la.yers for t,e delay in terminating t,e -roceedings t,us:
0,ese cases could ,ave +een s-ared t,e long and arduous route to.ards resolution
,ad t,e -arties and t,eir counsel +een more interested in -ursuing t,e trut, and t,e
merits of t,e claims rat,er t,an e1,i+iting a fanatical reliance on tec,nicalities. <arties
and counsel ,ave made t,ese cases a litigation of emotion. 0,e intransigence of -arties
and counsel is remar8a+le. *s late as last mont, t,is Commission made a last and final
attem-t to +ring t,e counsel of all t,e -arties (t,is Commission issued a s-ecial order
directing res-ondent 7ro.n Q Root5s resident agentIs to a--ear# to come to a more
conciliatory stance. )ven t,is failed (Rollo
-. 58#.
0,e s@ua++le +et.een t,e la.yers of claimants added to t,e delay in t,e dis-osition of t,e cases to t,e lament
of /(RC .,ic, com-lained:
It is very evident from t,e records t,at t,e -rotagonists in t,ese consolidated cases
a--ear to +e not only t,e individual com-lainants on t,e one ,and and *I7C and
7ro.n Q Root on t,e ot,er ,and. 0,e t.o la.yers for t,e com-lainants *tty. Gerardo
;el Cundo and *tty. >lorante ;e Castro ,ave yet to settle t,e rig,t of re-resentation
eac, one -ersistently claiming to a--ear in +e,alf of most of t,e com-lainants. *s a
result t,ere are t.o a--eals +y t,e com-lainants. *ttem-ts +y t,is Commission to
resolve counsels5 conflicting claims of t,eir res-ective aut,ority to re-resent t,e
com-lainants -rove futile. 0,e +ic8erings +y t,ese t.o counsels are reflected in t,eir
-leadings. In t,e c,arges and counterc,arges of falsification of documents and
signatures and in t,e dis+arment -roceedings +y one against t,e ot,er. *ll t,ese ,ave
to a large e1tent a+etted in confounding t,e issues raised in t,ese cases 4um+le t,e
-resentation of evidence and even derailed t,e -ros-ects of an amica+le settlement. It
.ould not +e far3fetc,ed to imagine t,at +ot, counsel un.ittingly -er,a-s -ainted a
rain+o. for t,e com-lainants .it, t,e -rover+ial -ot of gold at its end containing more
t,an !"R1'' million t,e aggregate of t,e claims in t,ese cases. It is li8e.ise not
im-ro+a+le t,at t,eir mis-laced 6eal and e1u+erance caused t,em to t,ro. all caution
to t,e .ind in t,e matter of elementary rules of -rocedure and evidence (Rollo --. 583
59#.
*dding to t,e confusion in t,e -roceedings +efore /(RC is t,e listing of some of t,e com-lainants in +ot,
-etitions filed +y t,e t.o la.yers. *s noted +y /(RC 2t,e -ro+lem created +y t,is situation is t,at if one of t,e
t.o -etitions is dismissed t,en t,e -arties and t,e -u+lic res-ondents .ould not 8no. .,ic, claim of .,ic,
-etitioner .as dismissed and .,ic, .as not.2
7. Claimants insist t,at all t,eir claims could -ro-erly +e consolidated in a 2class suit2 +ecause 2all t,e named
com-lainants ,ave similar money claims and similar rig,ts soug,t irres-ective of .,et,er t,ey .or8ed in
7a,rain !nited *ra+ )mirates or in *+u ;,a+i (i+ya or in any -art of t,e Ciddle )ast2 (Rollo --. $53$8#.
* class suit is -ro-er .,ere t,e su+4ect matter of t,e controversy is one of common or general interest to many
and t,e -arties are so numerous t,at it is im-ractica+le to +ring t,em all +efore t,e court (Revised Rules of
Court Rule $ "ec. 19#.
B,ile all t,e claims are for +enefits granted under t,e 7a,rain (a. many of t,e claimants .or8ed outside
7a,rain. "ome of t,e claimants .ere de-loyed in Indonesia and Calaysia under different terms and conditions of
em-loyment.
/(RC and t,e <=)* *dministrator are correct in t,eir stance t,at inasmuc, as t,e first re@uirement of a class
suit is not -resent (common or general interest +ased on t,e *miri ;ecree of t,e "tate of 7a,rain# it is only
logical t,at only t,ose .,o .or8ed in 7a,rain s,all +e entitled to file t,eir claims in a class suit.
B,ile t,ere are common defendants (*I7C and 7RII# and t,e nature of t,e claims is t,e same (for em-loyee5s
+enefits# t,ere is no common @uestion of la. or fact. B,ile some claims are +ased on t,e *miri (a. of 7a,rain
many of t,e claimants never .or8ed in t,at country +ut .ere de-loyed else.,ere. 0,us eac, claimant is
interested only in ,is o.n demand and not in t,e claims of t,e ot,er em-loyees of defendants. 0,e named
claimants ,ave a s-ecial or -articular interest in s-ecific +enefits com-letely different from t,e +enefits in .,ic,
t,e ot,er named claimants and t,ose included as mem+ers of a 2class2 are claiming (7erses v. Lillanueva 95
<,il. &:$ O191$P#. It a--ears t,at eac, claimant is only interested in collecting ,is o.n claims. * claimants ,as no
concern in -rotecting t,e interests of t,e ot,er claimants as s,o.n +y t,e fact t,at ,undreds of t,em ,ave
a+andoned t,eir co3claimants and ,ave entered into se-arate com-romise settlements of t,eir res-ective
claims. * -rinci-le +asic to t,e conce-t of 2class suit2 is t,at -laintiffs +roug,t on t,e record must fairly re-resent
and -rotect t,e interests of t,e ot,ers (;imayuga v. Court of Industrial Relations 1'1 <,il. 59' O195:P#. >or t,is
matter t,e claimants .,o .or8ed in 7a,rain can not +e allo.ed to sue in a class suit in a 4udicial -roceeding.
0,e most t,at can +e accorded to t,em under t,e Rules of Court is to +e allo.ed to 4oin as -laintiffs in one
com-laint (Revised Rules of Court Rule $ "ec. %#.
0,e Court is e1tra3cautious in allo.ing class suits +ecause t,ey are t,e e1ce-tions to t,e condition sine qua non
re@uiring t,e 4oinder of all indis-ensa+le -arties.
In an im-ro-erly instituted class suit t,ere .ould +e no -ro+lem if t,e decision secured is favora+le to t,e
-laintiffs. 0,e -ro+lem arises .,en t,e decision is adverse to t,em in .,ic, case t,e ot,ers .,o .ere
im-leaded +y t,eir self3a--ointed re-resentatives .ould surely claim denial of due -rocess.
C. 0,e claimants in G.R. /o. 1'&::% also urged t,at t,e <=)* *dministrator and /(RC s,ould ,ave declared
*tty. >lorante ;e Castro guilty of 2forum s,o--ing am+ulance c,asing activities falsification du-licity and ot,er
un-rofessional activities2 and ,is a--earances as counsel for some of t,e claimants as illegal (Rollo --. $83&'#.
0,e *nti3>orum ",o--ing Rule (Revised Circular /o. 98391# is intended to -ut a sto- to t,e -ractice of some
-arties of filing multi-le -etitions and com-laints involving t,e same issues .it, t,e result t,at t,e courts or
agencies ,ave to resolve t,e same issues. "aid Rule ,o.ever a--lies only to -etitions filed .it, t,e "u-reme
Court and t,e Court of *--eals. It is entitled 2*dditional Re@uirements >or <etitions >iled .it, t,e "u-reme
Court and t,e Court of *--eals 0o <revent >orum ",o--ing or Culti-le >iling of <etitioners and Com-lainants.2
0,e first sentence of t,e circular e1-ressly states t,at said circular a--lies to an governs t,e filing of -etitions in
t,e "u-reme Court and t,e Court of *--eals.
B,ile *dministrative Circular /o. '&39& e1tended t,e a--lication of t,e anti3forum s,o--ing rule to t,e lo.er
courts and administrative agencies said circular too8 effect only on *-ril 1 199&.
<=)* and /(RC could not ,ave entertained t,e com-laint for unet,ical conduct against *tty. ;e Castro
+ecause /(RC and <=)* ,ave no 4urisdiction to investigate c,arges of unet,ical conduct of la.yers.
Attorne#0s $ien
0,e 2/otice and Claim to )nforce *ttorney5s (ien2 dated ;ecem+er 1& 1999 .as filed +y *tty. Gerardo *. ;el
Cundo to -rotect ,is claim for attorney5s fees for legal services rendered in favor of t,e claimants (G.R. /o.
1'&::% Rollo --. 8&138&&#.
* statement of a claim for a c,arging lien s,all +e filed .it, t,e court or administrative agency .,ic, renders and
e1ecutes t,e money 4udgment secured +y t,e la.yer for ,is clients. 0,e la.yer s,all cause .ritten notice t,ereof
to +e delivered to ,is clients and to t,e adverse -arty (Revised Rules of Court Rule 1$8 "ec. $:#. 0,e
statement of t,e claim for t,e c,arging lien of *tty. ;el Cundo s,ould ,ave +een filed .it, t,e administrative
agency t,at rendered and e1ecuted t,e 4udgment.
Contempt of Court
0,e com-laint of *tty. Gerardo *. ;el Cundo to cite *tty. >lorante ;e Castro and *tty. Dat6 0ierra for violation of
t,e Code of <rofessional Res-onsi+ility s,ould +e filed in a se-arate and a--ro-riate -roceeding.
5.R. No. +-69++)+6
Claimants c,arge /(RC .it, grave a+use of discretion in not acce-ting t,eir formula of 20,ree Hours *verage
;aily =vertime2 in com-uting t,e overtime -ayments. 0,ey claim t,at it .as 7RII itself .,ic, -ro-osed t,e
formula during t,e negotiations for t,e settlement of t,eir claims in 7a,rain and t,erefore it is in esto--el to
disclaim said offer (Rollo --. 91399#.
Claimants -resented a Cemorandum of t,e Cinistry of (a+or of 7a,rain dated *-ril 1% 198$ .,ic, in -ertinent
-art states:
*fter t,e -erusal of t,e memorandum of t,e ?ice President and the Area &ana'er,
&iddle ast, of Bro*n @ Root Co. and t,e "ummary of t,e com-ensation offered +y t,e
Com-any to t,e em-loyees in res-ect of t,e difference of -ay of t,e .ages of t,e
overtime and t,e difference of vacation leave and t,e -erusal of t,e documents
attac,ed t,ereto i.e. minutes of t,e meetings +et.een t,e Re-resentative of t,e
em-loyees and t,e management of t,e Com-any t,e com-laint filed +y t,e em-loyees
on 1&I9I8$ .,ere t,ey ,ave claimed as ,ereina+ove stated sam-le of t,e "ervice
Contract e1ecuted +et.een one of t,e em-loyees and t,e com-any t,roug, its a'ent in
(sic# Philippines, Asia <nternational Builders Corporation .,ere it ,as +een -rovided for
&8 ,ours of .or8 -er .ee8 and an annual leave of 19 days and an overtime *a'e of + @
+A6 of the normal hourl# *a'e.
111 111 111
0,e Com-any in its com-utation reac,ed t,e follo.ing averages:
*. 1. 0,e average duration of t,e actual service of t,e em-loyee is $5 mont,s for t,e
<,ili--ino (sic# em-loyees . . . .
9. 0,e average .age -er ,our for t,e <,ili--ino (sic# em-loyee is !"R9.%9 . . . .
$. 3he avera'e hours for the overtime is : hours plus in all pu!lic holida#s and
*eekends.
&. Pa#ment of B4C2.71 per months (sic) of service as compensation for the difference
of the *a'es of the overtime done for eac, <,ili--ino (sic# em-loyee . . . (Rollo -.99#.
7RII and *I7C countered: (1# t,at t,e Cemorandum .as not -re-ared +y t,em +ut +y a su+ordinate official in
t,e 7a,rain ;e-artment of (a+orG (9# t,at t,ere .as no s,o.ing t,at t,e 7a,rain Cinister of (a+or ,ad a--roved
said memorandumG and ($# t,at t,e offer .as made in t,e course of t,e negotiation for an amica+le settlement of
t,e claims and t,erefore it .as not admissi+le in evidence to -rove t,at anyt,ing is due to t,e claimants.
B,ile said document .as -resented to t,e <=)* .it,out o+serving t,e rule on -resenting official documents of
a foreign government as -rovided in "ection 9& Rule 1$9 of t,e 1989 Revised Rules on )vidence it can +e
admitted in evidence in -roceedings +efore an administrative +ody. 0,e o--osing -arties ,ave a co-y of t,e said
memorandum and t,ey could easily verify its aut,enticity and accuracy.
0,e admissi+ility of t,e offer of com-romise made +y 7RII as contained in t,e memorandum is anot,er matter.
!nder "ection 9: Rule 1$' of t,e 1989 Revised Rules on )vidence an offer to settle a claim is not an
admission t,at anyt,ing is due.
"aid Rule -rovides:
=ffer of com-romise not admissi+le. N In civil cases an offer of com-romise is not an
admission of any lia+ility and is not admissi+le in evidence against t,e offeror.
0,is Rule is not only a rule of -rocedure to avoid t,e cluttering of t,e record .it, un.anted evidence +ut a
statement of -u+lic -olicy. 0,ere is great -u+lic interest in ,aving t,e -rotagonists settle t,eir differences
amica+le +efore t,ese ri-en into litigation. )very effort must +e ta8en to encourage t,em to arrive at a
settlement. 0,e su+mission of offers and counter3offers in t,e negotiation ta+le is a ste- in t,e rig,t direction. 7ut
to +ind a -arty to ,is offers as .,at claimants .ould ma8e t,is Court do .ould defeat t,e salutary -ur-ose of
t,e Rule.
5.R. Nos. +-,-19):1
*. /(RC a--lied t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% .,ic, -rovides for greater +enefits t,an t,ose sti-ulated in
t,e overseas3em-loyment contracts of t,e claimants. It .as of t,e +elief t,at 2.,ere t,e la.s of t,e ,ost country
are more favora+le and +eneficial to t,e .or8ers t,en t,e la.s of t,e ,ost country s,all form -art of t,e
overseas em-loyment contract.2 It @uoted .it, a--roval t,e o+servation of t,e <=)* *dministrator t,at 2. . . in
la+or -roceedings all dou+ts in t,e im-lementation of t,e -rovisions of t,e (a+or Code and its im-lementing
regulations s,all +e resolved in favor of la+or2 (Rollo --. 9'39&#.
*I7C and 7RII claim t,at /(RC acted ca-riciously and .,imsically .,en it refused to enforce t,e overseas3
em-loyment contracts .,ic, +ecame t,e la. of t,e -arties. 0,ey contend t,at t,e -rinci-le t,at a la. is
deemed to +e a -art of a contract a--lies only to -rovisions of <,ili--ine la. in relation to contracts e1ecuted in
t,e <,ili--ines.
0,e overseas3em-loyment contracts .,ic, .ere -re-ared +y *I7C and 7RII t,emselves -rovided t,at t,e la.s
of t,e ,ost country +ecame a--lica+le to said contracts if t,ey offer terms and conditions more favora+le t,at
t,ose sti-ulated t,erein. It .as sti-ulated in said contracts t,at:
0,e )m-loyee agrees t,at .,ile in t,e em-loy of t,e )m-loyer ,e .ill not engage in
any ot,er +usiness or occu-ation nor see8 em-loyment .it, anyone ot,er t,an t,e
)m-loyerG t,at ,e s,all devote ,is entire time and attention and ,is +est energies and
a+ilities to t,e -erformance of suc, duties as may +e assigned to ,im +y t,e )m-loyerG
t,at ,e s,all at all times +e su+4ect to t,e direction and control of t,e )m-loyerG and t,at
t,e +enefits -rovided to )m-loyee ,ereunder are su+stituted for and in lieu of all ot,er
+enefits -rovided +y any a--lica+le la. provided of course, that total remuneration and
!enefits do not fall !elo* that of the host countr# re'ulation or custom, it !ein'
understood that should applica!le la*s esta!lish that frin'e !enefits, or other such
!enefits additional to the compensation herein a'reed cannot !e *aived )m-loyee
agrees t,at suc, com-ensation .ill +e ad4usted do.n.ard so t,at t,e total
com-ensation ,ereunder -lus t,e non3.aiva+le +enefits s,all +e e@uivalent to t,e
com-ensation ,erein agreed (Rollo --. $593$5$#.
0,e overseas3em-loyment contracts could ,ave +een drafted more felicitously. B,ile a -art t,ereof -rovides t,at
t,e com-ensation to t,e em-loyee may +e 2ad4usted do.n.ard so t,at t,e total com-utation (t,ereunder# -lus
t,e non3.aiva+le +enefits s,all +e e@uivalent to t,e com-ensation2 t,erein agreed anot,er -art of t,e same
-rovision categorically states 2t,at total remuneration and +enefits do not fall +elo. t,at of t,e ,ost country
regulation and custom.2
*ny am+iguity in t,e overseas3em-loyment contracts s,ould +e inter-reted against *I7C and 7RII t,e -arties
t,at drafted it ()astern ",i--ing (ines Inc. v. Cargarine3Ler8aufs3!nion 9$ "CR* 95: O19:9P#.
*rticle 1$:: of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines -rovides:
0,e inter-retation of o+scure .ords or sti-ulations in a contract s,all not favor t,e -arty
.,o caused t,e o+scurity.
"aid rule of inter-retation is a--lica+le to contracts of ad,esion .,ere t,ere is already a -re-ared form
containing t,e sti-ulations of t,e em-loyment contract and t,e em-loyees merely 2ta8e it or leave it.2 0,e
-resum-tion is t,at t,ere .as an im-osition +y one -arty against t,e ot,er and t,at t,e em-loyees signed t,e
contracts out of necessity t,at reduced t,eir +argaining -o.er (>ieldmen5s Insurance Co. Inc. v. "ongco 95
"CR* :' O19%8P#.
*--lying t,e said legal -rece-ts .e read t,e overseas3em-loyment contracts in @uestion as ado-ting t,e
-rovisions of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% as -art and -arcel t,ereof.
0,e -arties to a contract may select t,e la. +y .,ic, it is to +e governed (C,es,ire <rivate International (a.
18: O:t, ed.P#. In suc, a case t,e foreign la. is ado-ted as a 2system2 to regulate t,e relations of t,e -arties
including @uestions of t,eir ca-acity to enter into t,e contract t,e formalities to +e o+served +y t,em matters of
-erformance and so fort, (1% *m Jur 9d
15'31%1#.
Instead of ado-ting t,e entire mass of t,e foreign la. t,e -arties may 4ust agree t,at s-ecific -rovisions of a
foreign statute s,all +e deemed incor-orated into t,eir contract 2as a set of terms.2 7y suc, reference to t,e
-rovisions of t,e foreign la. t,e contract does not +ecome a foreign contract to +e governed +y t,e foreign la..
0,e said la. does not o-erate as a statute +ut as a set of contractual terms deemed .ritten in t,e contract
(*nton <rivate International (a. 19: O19%:PG ;icey and Corris 0,e Conflict of (a.s :'93:'$ O8t, ed.P#.
* +asic -olicy of contract is to -rotect t,e e1-ectation of t,e -arties (Reese C,oice of (a. in 0orts and
Contracts 1% Colum+ia Journal of 0ransnational (a. 1 91 O19::P#. "uc, -arty e1-ectation is -rotected +y giving
effect to t,e -arties5 o.n c,oice of t,e a--lica+le la. (>ric8e v. Is+randtsen Co. Inc. 151 >. "u--. &%5 &%:
O195:P#. 0,e c,oice of la. must ,o.ever +ear some relations,i- to t,e -arties or t,eir transaction ("coles and
Hayes Conflict of (a. %&&3%&: O1989P#. 0,ere is no @uestion t,at t,e contracts soug,t to +e enforced +y
claimants ,ave a direct connection .it, t,e 7a,rain la. +ecause t,e services .ere rendered in t,at country.
In Norse &ana'ement Co. (P3) v. National 4eamen Board 11: "CR* &8% (1989# t,e 2)m-loyment
*greement2 +et.een /orse Canagement Co. and t,e late ,us+and of t,e -rivate res-ondent e1-ressly
-rovided t,at in t,e event of illness or in4ury to t,e em-loyee arising out of and in t,e course of ,is em-loyment
and not due to ,is o.n misconduct 2com-ensation s,all +e -aid to em-loyee in accordance .it, and su+4ect to
t,e limitation of t,e Bor8men5s Com-ensation *ct of t,e Re-u+lic of t,e <,ili--ines or t,e Bor8er5s Insurance
*ct of registry of t,e vessel .,ic,ever is greater.2 "ince t,e la.s of "inga-ore t,e -lace of registry of t,e
vessel in .,ic, t,e late ,us+and of -rivate res-ondent served at t,e time of ,is deat, granted a +etter
com-ensation -ac8age .e a--lied said foreign la. in -reference to t,e terms of t,e contract.
0,e case of Ba'on' (ilipinas Dverseas Corporation v. National $a!or Relations Commission 1$5 "CR* 9:8
(1985# relied u-on +y *I7C and 7RII is ina--osite to t,e facts of t,e cases at +enc,. 0,e issue in t,at case .as
.,et,er t,e amount of t,e deat, com-ensation of a >ili-ino seaman s,ould +e determined under t,e s,i-+oard
em-loyment contract e1ecuted in t,e <,ili--ines or t,e Hong8ong la.. Holding t,at t,e s,i-+oard em-loyment
contract .as controlling t,e court differentiated said case from /orse Canagement Co. in t,at in t,e latter case
t,ere .as an e1-ress sti-ulation in t,e em-loyment contract t,at t,e foreign la. .ould +e a--lica+le if it afforded
greater com-ensation.
7. *I7C and 7RII claim t,at t,ey .ere denied +y /(RC of t,eir rig,t to due -rocess .,en said administrative
agency granted >riday3-ay differential ,oliday3-ay differential annual3leave differential and leave indemnity -ay
to t,e claimants listed in *nne1 7 of t,e Resolution. *t first /(RC reversed t,e resolution of t,e <=)*
*dministrator granting t,ese +enefits on a finding t,at t,e <=)* *dministrator failed to consider t,e evidence
-resented +y *I7C and 7RII t,at some findings of fact of t,e <=)* *dministrator .ere not su--orted +y t,e
evidence and t,at some of t,e evidence .ere not disclosed to *I7C and 7RII (Rollo --. $53$%G 1'%31':#. 7ut
instead of remanding t,e case to t,e <=)* *dministrator for a ne. ,earing .,ic, means furt,er delay in t,e
termination of t,e case /(RC decided to -ass u-on t,e validity of t,e claims itself. It is t,is -rocedure t,at *I7C
and 7RII com-lain of as +eing irregular and a 2reversi+le error.2
0,ey -ointed out t,at /(RC too8 into consideration evidence su+mitted on a--eal t,e same evidence .,ic,
/(RC found to ,ave +een 2unilaterally su+mitted +y t,e claimants and not disclosed to t,e adverse -arties2
(Rollo --. $:3$9#.
/(RC noted t,at so many -ieces of evidentiary matters .ere su+mitted to t,e <=)* administrator +y t,e
claimants after t,e cases .ere deemed su+mitted for resolution and .,ic, .ere ta8en cogni6ance of +y t,e
<=)* *dministrator in resolving t,e cases. B,ile *I7C and 7RII ,ad no o--ortunity to refute said evidence of
t,e claimants +efore t,e <=)* *dministrator t,ey ,ad all t,e o--ortunity to re+ut said evidence and to -resent
t,eir
counter3evidence +efore /(RC. *s a matter of fact *I7C and 7RII t,emselves .ere a+le to -resent +efore
/(RC additional evidence .,ic, t,ey failed to -resent +efore t,e <=)* *dministrator.
!nder *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines /(RC is en4oined to 2use every and all reasona+le
means to ascertain t,e facts in eac, case s-eedily and o+4ectively and .it,out regard to tec,nicalities of la. or
-rocedure all in t,e interest of due -rocess.2
In deciding to resolve t,e validity of certain claims on t,e +asis of t,e evidence of +ot, -arties su+mitted +efore
t,e <=)* *dministrator and /(RC t,e latter considered t,at it .as not e1-edient to remand t,e cases to t,e
<=)* *dministrator for t,at .ould only -rolong t,e already -rotracted legal controversies.
)ven t,e "u-reme Court ,as decided a--ealed cases on t,e merits instead of remanding t,em to t,e trial court
for t,e rece-tion of evidence .,ere t,e same can +e readily determined from t,e uncontroverted facts on record
(;evelo-ment 7an8 of t,e <,ili--ines v. Intermediate *--ellate Court 19' "CR* %5$ O199'PG <agdonsalan v.
/ational (a+or Relations Commission 19: "CR* &%$ O198&P#.
C. *I7C and 7RII c,arge /(RC .it, grave a+use of discretion .,en it ordered t,e <=)* *dministrator to ,old
ne. ,earings for %8$ claimants listed in *nne1 ; of t,e Resolution dated "e-tem+er 9 1991 .,ose claims ,ad
+een denied +y t,e <=)* *dministrator 2for lac8 of -roof2 and for %9 claimants listed in *nne1 ) of t,e same
Resolution .,ose claims ,ad +een found +y /(RC itself as not 2su--orted +y evidence2 (Rollo --. &13&5#.
/(RC +ased its ruling on *rticle 918(c# of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines .,ic, em-o.ers it 2OtoP conduct
investigation for t,e determination of a @uestion matter or controversy .it,in its 4urisdiction . . . .2
It is t,e -osture of *I7C and 7RII t,at /(RC ,as no aut,ority under *rticle 918(c# to remand a case involving
claims .,ic, ,ad already +een dismissed +ecause suc, -rovision contem-lates only situations .,ere t,ere is
still a @uestion or controversy to +e resolved (Rollo --. &13&9#.
* -rinci-le .ell em+edded in *dministrative (a. is t,at t,e tec,nical rules of -rocedure and evidence do not
a--ly to t,e -roceedings conducted +y administrative agencies (>irst *sian 0rans-ort Q ",i--ing *gency Inc. v.
=-le 1&9 "CR* 5&9 O198%PG *sia.orld <u+lis,ing House Inc. v. =-le 159 "CR* 919 O198:P#. 0,is -rinci-le is
ens,rined in *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines and is no. t,e +edroc8 of -roceedings +efore
/(RC.
/ot.it,standing t,e non3a--lica+ility of tec,nical rules of -rocedure and evidence in administrative -roceedings
t,ere are cardinal rules .,ic, must +e o+served +y t,e ,earing officers in order to com-ly .it, t,e due -rocess
re@uirements of t,e Constitution. 0,ese cardinal rules are collated in An' 3i!a# v. Court of <ndustrial Relations
%9 <,il. %$5 (19&'#.
LIII
0,e t,ree -etitions .ere filed under Rule %5 of t,e Revised Rules of Court on t,e grounds t,at /(RC ,ad
committed grave a+use of discretion amounting to lac8 of 4urisdiction in issuing t,e @uestioned orders. Be find
no suc, a+use of discretion.
BH)R)>=R) all t,e t,ree -etitions are ;I"CI"");.
CADALIN ET AL 8S. POEA ET AL 1 co55e"t
BIEN8ENIDO . CADALIN, ROLANDO . AUL, DONATO B. E8ANGELISTA, !"# t'e re(t o. 1,<=<
NAED9COPLAINANTS, t'r- !"# b* t'e&r Attor"e*9&"9.!ct, Att*. GERARDO A. DEL UNDOG(.
P$ILIPPINE O8ERSEAS EPLO?ENT ADINISTRATIONHS ADINISTRATOR, NLRC, BRO7N A ROOT
INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANDBOR ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS CORPORATION
GRN 1:;<<=, Dece5ber >,199;.
FACTS:
0,is is a consolidation of $ cases of "<)CI*( CILI( *C0I=/" in t,e "u-reme Court for Certiorari.
=n June % 198& Cadalin *mul and )vangelista in t,eir o.n +e,alf and on +e,alf of :98 ot,er =CBs instituted
a class suit +y filing an A*mended Com-laintH .it, t,e <=)* for money claims arising from t,eir recruitment +y
*"I* I/0)R/*0I=/*( 7!I(;)R" C=R<=R*0I=/ (*I7C# and em-loyment +y 7R=B/ Q R==0
I/0)R/*0I=/*( I/C (7RI# .,ic, is a foreign cor-oration .it, ,ead@uarters in Houston 0e1as and is
engaged in constructionG .,ile *I7C is a domestic cor-oration licensed as a service contractor to recruit
mo+ili6e and de-loy >ili-ino .or8ers for overseas em-loyment on +e,alf of its foreign -rinci-als.
0,e amended com-laint soug,t t,e -ayment of t,e une1-ired -ortion of t,e em-loyment contracts .,ic, .as
terminated -rematurely and secondarily t,e -ayment of t,e interest of t,e earnings of t,e 0ravel and Reserved
>undG interest on all t,e un-aid +enefitsG area .age and salary differential -ayG fringe +enefitsG reim+ursement of
""" and -remium not remitted to t,e """G refund of .it,,olding ta1 not remitted to t,e 7IRG -enalties for
committing -ro,i+ited -racticesG as .ell as t,e sus-ension of t,e license of *I7C and t,e accreditation of 7RII
=n =cto+er 9 198& t,e <=)* *dministrator denied t,e ACotion to "tri8e =ut of t,e RecordsH filed +y *I7C +ut
re@uired t,e claimants to correct t,e deficiencies in t,e com-laint -ointed out.
*I7 and 7RII 8e-t on filing Cotion for )1tension of 0ime to file t,eir ans.er. 0,e <=)* 8e-t on granting suc,
motions.
=n /ovem+er 1& 198& claimants filed an o--osition to t,e motions for e1tension of time and as8ed t,at *I7C
and 7RII declared in default for failure to file t,eir ans.ers.
=n ;ecem+er 9: 198& t,e <=)* *dministrator issued an order directing *I7C and 7RII to file t,eir ans.ers
.it,in ten days from recei-t of t,e order.
(at madami -ang motions ang na3file ne. com-lainants 4oined t,e case ang daming inavail na remedies ng
+ot, -arties#
=n June 19 198: *I7C finally su+mitted its ans.er to t,e com-laint. *t t,e same ,earing t,e -arties .ere
given a -eriod of 15 days from said date .it,in .,ic, to su+mit t,eir res-ective -osition -a-ers. =n >e+ruary 9&
1988 *I7C and 7RII su+mitted -osition -a-er. =n =cto+er 9: 1988 *I7C and 7RII filed a AConsolidated
Re-lyH <=)* *dminitartor rendered ,is decision .,ic, a.arded t,e amount of R89& %59.&& in favor of only $9&
com-lainants. Claimants su+mitted t,eir A*--eal Cemorandum >or <artial *--ealH from t,e decision of t,e
<=)*. *I7C also filed its CR andIor a--eal in addition to t,e A/otice of *--ealH filed earlier.
/(RC -romulgated its Resolution modifying t,e decision of t,e <=)*. 0,e resolution removed some of t,e
+enefits a.arded in favor of t,e claimants. /(RC denied all t,e CRs. Hence t,ese -etitions filed +y t,e
claimants and +y *l7C and 7RII.
0,e case rooted from t,e (a+or (a. enacted +y 7a,rain .,ere most of t,e com-lainants .ere de-loyed. His
Ca4esty Ise 7in "elman *l Daifa *mir of 7a,rain issued ,is *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ on June 1% 11:% ot,er.ise
8no.n re t,e (a+our (a. for t,e <rivate "ector. "ome of t,e -rovision of *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ t,at are relevant
to t,e claims of t,e com-lainants3a--ellants are as follo.s:
A*rt. :9: 1 1 1 * .or8er s,all receive -ayment for eac, e1tra ,our e@uivalent to ,is .age entitlement increased
+y a minimum of t.enty3rive -er centurn t,ereof for ,ours .or8ed during t,e dayG and +y a minimum off fifty -er
centurn t,ereof for ,ours .or8ed during t,e nig,t .,ic, s,all +e deemed to +eing from seven oEcloc8 in t,e
evening until seven oEcloc8 in t,e morning .H
*rt. 8': >riday s,all +e deemed to +e a .ee8ly day of rest on full -ay.
If em-loyee .or8ed 15'S of ,is normal .age s,all +e -aid to ,im 1 1 1.H
*rt. 81G 1 1 1 B,en conditions of .or8 re@uire t,e .or8er to .or8 on any official ,oliday ,e s,all +e -aid an
additional sum e@uivalent to 15'S of ,is normal .age.H
*rt. 8&: )very .or8er .,o ,as com-leted one yearEs continuous service .it, ,is em-loyer s,all +e entitled to
(aos on full -ay for a -eriod of not less t,an 91 days for eac, year increased to a -eriod not less t,an 98 days
after five continuous years of service.H
* .or8er s,all +e entitled to suc, leave u-on a @uantum meruit in res-ect of t,e -ro-ortion of ,is service in t,at
year.H
*rt. 1':: * contract of em-loyment made for a -eriod of indefinite duration may +e terminated +y eit,er -arty
t,ereto after giving t,e ot,er -arty -rior notice +efore suc, termination in .riting in res-ect of mont,ly -aid
.or8ers and fifteen daysE notice in res-ect of ot,er .or8ers. 0,e -arty terminating a contract .it,out t,e re@uired
notice s,all -ay to t,e ot,er -arty com-ensation e@uivalent to t,e amount of .ages -aya+le to t,e .or8er for t,e
-eriod of suc, notice or t,e une1-ired -ortion t,ereof.H
*rt. Ill: 1 1 1 t,e em-loyer concerned s,all -ay to suc, .or8er u-on termination of em-loyment a leaving
indemnity for t,e -eriod of ,is em-loyment calculated on t,e +asis of fifteen daysE .ages for eac, year of t,e
first t,ree years of service and of one mont,Es .ages for eac, year of service t,ereafter. "uc, .or8er s,all +e
entitled to -ayment of leaving indemnity u-on a @uantum meruit in -ro-ortion to t,e -eriod of ,is service
com-leted .it,in a year.H
ISSUE:
1. B=/ t,e foreign la. s,ould govern or t,e contract of t,e -arties.(B=/ t,e com-lainants .,o ,ave .or8ed in
7a,rain are entitled to t,e a+ove3mentioned +enefits -rovided +y *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 7a,rain#.
9. B=/ t,e 7a,rain (a. s,ould a--ly in t,e case. (*ssuming it is a--lica+le B=/ com-lainantsE claim for t,e
+enefits -rovided t,erein ,ave -rescri+ed.#
$. B,et,er or not t,e instant cases @ualify asG a class suit (siningit 8o nalang#
(t,e rest of t,e issues in t,e full te1t of t,e case refer to (a+or (a.#
RULING:
1. /(RC set aside "ection 1 Rule 199 of t,e 1989 Revised Rules on )vidence governing t,e -leading and -roof
of a foreign la. and admitted in evidence a sim-le co-y of t,e 7a,rainEs *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% ((a+our
(a. for t,e <rivate "ector#.
/(RC a--lied t,e *miri ;eere /o. 9$ of 19:% .,ic, -rovides for greater +enefits t,an t,ose sti-ulated in t,e
overseas3em-loyment contracts of t,e claimants. It .as of t,e +elief t,at .,ere t,e la.s of t,e ,ost country are
more favora+le and +eneficial to t,e .or8ers t,en t,e la.s of t,e ,ost country s,all form -art of t,e overseas
em-loyment contract. It a--roved t,e o+servation of t,e <=)* *dministrator t,at in la+or -roceedings all
dou+ts in t,e im-lementation of t,e -rovisions of t,e (a+or Code and its im-lementing regulations s,all +e
resolved in favor of la+or.
0,e overseas3em-loyment contracts .,ic, .ere -re-ared +y *I7C and 7RII t,emselves -rovided t,at t,e la.s
of t,e ,ost country +ecame a--lica+le to said contracts if t,ey offer terms and conditions more favora+le t,an
t,ose sti-ulated t,erein. Ho.ever t,ere .as a -art of t,e em-loyment contract .,ic, -rovides t,at t,e
com-ensation of t,e em-loyee may +e Aad4usted do.n.ard so t,at t,e total com-utation -lus t,e non3.aiva+le
+enefits s,all +e e@uivalent to t,e com-ensationH t,erein agreeE anot,er -art of t,e same -rovision categorically
states At,at total remuneration and +enefits do not fall +elo. t,at of t,e ,ost country regulation and custom.H
*ny am+iguity in t,e overseas3em-loyment contracts s,ould +e inter-reted against *I7C and 7RII t,e -arties
t,at drafted it. *rticle 1$:: of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines -rovides:
J0,e inter-retation of o+scure .ords or sti-ulations in a contract s,all not favor t,e -arty .,o caused t,e
o+scurity.H
"aid rule of inter-retation is a--lica+le to contracts of ad,esion .,ere t,ere is already a -re-ared form
containing t,e sti-ulations of t,e em-loyment contract and t,e em-loyees merely Ata8e it or leave it.H 0,e
-resum-tion is t,at t,ere .as an im-osition +y one -arty against t,e ot,er and t,at t,e em-loyees signed t,e
contracts out of necessity t,at reduced t,eir +argaining -o.er.
Be read t,e overseas em-loyment contracts in @uestion as ado-ting t,e -rovisions of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$
of 19:% as -art and -arcel t,ereof. 0,e -arties to a contract may select t,e la. +y .,ic, it is to +e governed. In
suc, a case t,e foreign la. is ado-ted as a AsystemH to regulate t,e relations of t,e -arties including @uestions
of t,eir ca-acity to enter into t,e contract t,e formalities to +e o+served +y t,em matters of -erformance and
so fort,. Instead of ado-ting t,e entire mass of t,e foreign la. t,e -arties may 4ust agree t,at s-ecific -rovisions
of a foreign statute s,all +e deemed incor-orated into t,eir contract Aas a set of terms.H 7y suc, reference to t,e
-rovisions of t,e foreign la. t,e contract does not +ecome a foreign contract to +e governed +y t,e foreign la..
0,e said la. does not o-erate as a statute +ut as a set of contractual terms deemed .ritten in t,e contract.
* +asic -olicy of contract is to -rotect t,e e1-ectation of t,e -arties. "uc, -arty e1-ectation is -rotected +y
giving effect to t,e -artiesE o.n c,oice of t,e a--lica+le la.. 0,e c,oice of la. must ,o.ever +ear some
relations,i- t,e -arties or t,eir transaction. 0,ere is no @uestion t,at t,e contracts soug,t to +e enforced +y
claimants ,ave a direct connection .it, t,e 7a,rain la. +ecause t,e services .ere rendered in t,at country.
9. /(RC ruled t,at t,e -rescri-tive -eriod for t,e filing of t,e claims of t,e com-lainants .as $ years as
-rovided in *rticle 991 of t,e (a+or Code of t,e <,ili--ines and not ten years as -rovided in *rticle 11&& of t,e
Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines nor one year as -rovided in t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:%.
*rticle 15% of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% -rovides:
A* claim arising out of a contract of em-loyment s,all not actiona+le after t,e la-se of one year from t,e date of
t,e e1-iry of t,e ContractH.
*s a general rule a foreign -rocedural la. .ill not +e a--lied in t,e forum (local court# <rocedural matters suc,
as service of -rocess 4oinder of actions -eriod and re@uisites for a--eal and so fort, are governed +y t,e la.s
of t,e forum. 0,is is true even if t,e action is +ased u-on a foreign su+stantive la..
* la. on -rescri-tion of actions is sui generis in Conflict of (a.s in t,e sense t,at it may +e vie.ed eit,er as
-rocedural or su+stantive de-ending on t,e c,aracteri6ation given suc, a la.. In 7ournias v. *tlantic Caritime
Com-any (99' >. 9d. 159 9d Cir. O1955P# .,ere t,e issue .as t,e a--lica+ility of t,e <anama (a+or Code in a
case filed in t,e "tate of /e. For8 for claims arising from said Code t,e claims .ould ,ave -rescri+ed under t,e
<anamanian (a. +ut not under t,e "tatute of (imitations of /e. For8. 0,e !.". Circuit Court of *--eals ,eld
t,at t,e <anamanian (a. .as -rocedural as it .as not As-ecifically intended to +e su+stantiveH ,ence t,e
-rescri-tive -eriod -rovided in t,e la. of t,e forum s,ould a--ly. 0,e Court o+served: A. . . .e are dealing .it, a
statute of limitations of a foreign country and it is not clear on t,e face of t,e statute t,at its -ur-ose .as to limit
t,e enforcea+ility outside as .ell as .it,in t,e foreign country concerned of t,e su+stantive rig,ts to .,ic, t,e
statute -ertains. Be t,in8 t,at as a yardstic8 for determining .,et,er t,at .as t,e -ur-ose t,is test is t,e most
satisfactory one.
0,e Court furt,er noted: A*--lying t,at test ,ere it a--ears to us t,at t,e li+ellant is entitled to succeed for t,e
res-ondents ,ave failed to satisfy us t,at t,e <anamanian -eriod of limitation in @uestion .as s-ecifically aimed
against t,e -articular rig,ts .,ic, t,e li+ellant see8s to enforce. 0,e <anama (a+or Code is a statute ,aving
+road o+4ectives.H 0,e *merican court a--lied t,e statute of limitations of /e. For8 instead of t,e <anamanian
la. after finding t,at t,ere .as no s,o.ing t,at t,e <anamanian la. on -rescri-tion .as intended to +e
su+stantive. 7eing considered merely a -rocedural la. even in <anama it ,as to give .ay to t,e la. of t,e
forum (local Court# on -rescri-tion of actions.
Ho.ever t,e c,aracteri6ation of a statute into a -rocedural or su+stantive la. +ecomes irrelevant .,en t,e
country of t,e forum (local Court# ,as a A+orro.ing statute.H "aid statute ,as t,e -ractical effect of treating t,e
foreign statute of limitation as one of su+stance. * A+orro.ing statuteH directs t,e state of t,e forum (local Court#
to a--ly t,e foreign statute of limitations to t,e -ending claims +ased on a foreign la.. B,ile t,ere are several
8inds of A+orro.ing statutesH one form -rovides t,at an action +arred +y t,e la.s of t,e -lace .,ere it accrued
.ill not +e enforced in t,e forum even t,oug, t,e local statute .as not run against it.
"ection &8 of Code of Civil <rocedure is of t,is 8ind. It -rovides: AIf +y t,e la.s of t,e state or country .,ere t,e
cause of action arose t,e action is +arred it is also +arred in t,e <,ili--ine Islands.H
"ection &8 ,as not +een re-ealed or amended +y t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines. In t,e lig,t of t,e 198:
Constitution ,o.ever "ection &8 cannot +e enforced e1 -ro-rio vigore insofar as it ordains t,e a--lication in
t,is 4urisdiction of "ection 15% of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:%.
0,e courts of t,e forum (local Court# .ill not enforce any foreign claim o+no1ious to t,e forumEs -u+lic -olicy. 0o
enforce t,e one3year -rescri-tive -eriod of t,e *miri ;ecree /o. 9$ of 19:% as regards t,e claims in @uestion
.ould contravene t,e -u+lic -olicy on t,e -rotection to la+or.
In t,e ;eclaration of <rinci-les and "tate <olicies t,e 198: Constitution em-,asi6ed t,at:A0,e state s,all
-romote social 4ustice in all -,ases of national develo-mentH ("ec. 1'#.
J0,e state affirms la+or as a -rimary social economic force. It s,all -rotect t,e rig,ts of .or8ers and -romote
t,eir .elfareH ("ec. 18#.
In *rticle TIII on "ocial Justice and Human Rig,ts t,e 198: Constitution -rovides:
A"ec. $. 0,e "tate s,all afford full -rotection to la+or local and overseas organi6ed and unorgani6ed and
-romote full em-loyment and e@uality of em-loyment o--ortunities for all.H
0,us t,e a--lica+le la. on -rescri-tion is t,e <,ili--ine la..
0,e ne1t @uestion is .,et,er t,e -rescri-tive -eriod governing t,e filing of t,e claims is $ years as -rovided +y
t,e (a+or Code or 1' years as -rovided +y t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines.
*rticle 11&& of t,e Civil Code of t,e <,ili--ines -rovides:
A0,e follo.ing actions must +e +roug,t .it,in ten years from t,e time t,e rig,t of action accross:
(1# !-on a .ritten contractG (9# !-on an o+ligation created +y la.G ($# !-on a 4udgmentH
In t,is case t,e claim for -ay differentials is -rimarily anc,ored on t,e .ritten contracts +et.een t,e litigants t,e
ten3year -rescri-tive -eriod -rovided +y *rt. 11&&(l# of t,e /e. Civil Code s,ould govern.
$. /=. * class suit is -ro-er .,ere t,e su+4ect matter of t,e controversy is one of common or general interest to
many and t,e -arties are so numerous t,at it is im-ractica+le to +ring t,em all +efore t,e court. B,en all t,e
claims are for +enefits granted under t,e 7a,rain la. many of t,e claimants .or8ed outside 7a,rain. "ome of
t,e claimants .ere de-loyed in Indonesia under different terms and condition of em-loyment.
Inasmuc, as t,e >irst re@uirement of a class suit is not -resent (common or general interest +ased on t,e *miri
;ecree of t,e "tate of 7a,rain# it is only logical t,at only t,ose .,o .or8ed in 7a,rain s,all +e entitled to rile
t,eir claims in a class suit.
B,ile t,ere are common defendants (*I7C and 7RII# and t,e nature of t,e claims is t,e same (for em-loyeeEs
+enefits# t,ere is no common @uestion of la. or fact. B,ile some claims are +ased on t,e *miri (a. of 7a,rain
many of t,e claimants never .or8ed in t,at country +ut .ere de-loyed else.,ere. 0,us eac, claimant is
interested only in ,is o.n demand and not in t,e claims of t,e ot,er em-loyees of defendants. * claimant ,as no
concern in -rotecting t,e interests of t,e ot,er claimants as s,o.n +y t,e fact t,at ,undreds of t,em ,ave
a+andoned t,eir co3claimants and ,ave entered into se-arate com-romise settlements of t,eir res-ective
claims. 0,e claimants .,o .or8ed in 7a,rain can not +e allo.ed to sue in a class suit in a 4udicial -roceeding.
BH)R)>=R) all t,e t,ree -etitioners are ;I"CI"");.
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
i1
1
1i
1ii
1iii
1iv
1v
1vi
1vii
1viii
1i1
11
11i
11ii
11iii
11iv
11v
xxvi
$SBC 8S. S$ERAN Le!Ge ! co55e"t
$ONGFONG AND S$ANG$AI BANFING CORPORATION I$SBCJ G(. S$ERAN et !/
G.R. No. <2;9;
A-+-(t 11, 1989
FACTS: It a--ears t,at sometime in 1981 )astern 7oo8 "u--ly "ervice <0) (td. (C=C<*/F# a com-any
incor-orated in "inga-ore a--lied .it, and .as granted +y H"7C "inga-ore +ranc, an overdraft facility in t,e
ma1imum amount of "inga-ore dollars 9''''' .it, interest at $S over H"7C -rime rate -aya+le mont,ly on
amounts due under said overdraft facility.
*s a security for t,e re-ayment +y t,e C=C<*/F of sums advanced +y H"7C to it t,roug, t,e aforesaid
overdraft facility in 1989 +ot, -rivate res-ondents and a certain (o.e all of .,om .ere directors of t,e
C=C<*/F at suc, time e1ecuted a Joint and "everal Guarantee in favor of H"7C .,ere+y -rivate
res-ondents and (o.e agreed to -ay 4ointly and severally on demand all sums o.ed +y t,e C=C<*/F to
-etitioner 7*/D under t,e aforestated overdraft facility.
0,e Joint and "everal Guarantee -rovides inter alia t,at:
0,is guarantee and all rig,ts o+ligations and lia+ilities arising ,ereunder s,all +e construed and determined
under and may +e enforced in accordance .it, t,e la.s of t,e Re-u+lic of "inga-ore. Be ,ere+y agree t,at t,e
Courts of "inga-ore s,all ,ave 4urisdiction over all dis-utes arising under t,is guarantee. U
0,e C=C<*/F failed to -ay its o+ligation. 0,us H"7C demanded -ayment and inasmuc, as t,e -rivate
res-ondents still failed to -ay H"7C filed * com-laint for collection of a sum of money against -rivate
res-ondents ",erman and Relo4 +efore R0C of ?ue6on City.
<rivate res-ondents filed an C0; on t,e ground of lac8 of 4urisdiction over t,e su+4ect matter. 0,e trial court
denied t,e motion. 0,ey t,en filed +efore t,e res-ondent I*C a -etition for -ro,i+ition .it, -reliminary in4unction
andIor -rayer for a restraining order. 0,e I*C rendered a decision en4oining t,e R0C ?ue6on City from ta8ing
furt,er cogni6ance of t,e case and to dismiss t,e same for filing .it, t,e -ro-er court of "inga-ore .,ic, is t,e
-ro-er forum. CR denied ,ence t,is -etition.
ISSUE: ;o <,ili--ine courts ,ave 4urisdiction over t,e suit vis3a3vis t,e Guarantee sti-ulation regarding
4urisdictionV
$ELD: F)"
=ne +asic -rinci-le underlies all rules of 4urisdiction in International (a.: a "tate does not ,ave 4urisdiction in t,e
a+sence of some reasona+le +asis for e1ercising it .,et,er t,e -roceedings are in rem @uasi in rem or in
-ersonam. 0o +e reasona+le t,e 4urisdiction must +e +ased on some minimum contacts t,at .ill not offend
traditional notions of fair -lay and su+stantial 4ustice
0,e defense of -rivate res-ondents t,at t,e com-laint s,ould ,ave +een filed in "inga-ore is +ased merely on
tec,nicality. 0,ey did not even claim muc, less -rove t,at t,e filing of t,e action ,ere .ill cause t,em any
unnecessary trou+le damage or e1-ense. =n t,e ot,er ,and t,ere is no s,o.ing t,at -etitioner 7*/D filed t,e
action ,ere 4ust to ,arass -rivate res-ondents.
WW
In t,e case of /eville F. (amis )nts. et al. v. (agamon etc. .,ere t,e sti-ulation .as AOiPn case of litigation
4urisdiction s,all +e vested in t,e Court of ;avao City.H Be ,eld:
*nent t,e claim t,at ;avao City ,ad +een sti-ulated as t,e venue suffice it to say t,at a sti-ulation as to venue
does not -reclude t,e filing of suits in t,e residence of -laintiff or defendant under "ection 9 (+# Rule & R=C in
t,e a+sence of @ualifying or restrictive .ords in t,e agreement .,ic, .ould indicate t,at t,e -lace named is t,e
only venue agreed u-on +y t,e -arties.
*--lying t,e foregoing to t,e case at +ar t,e -arties did not t,ere+y sti-ulate t,at only t,e courts of "inga-ore
to t,e e1clusion of all t,e rest ,as 4urisdiction. /eit,er did t,e clause in @uestion o-erate to divest <,ili--ine
courts of 4urisdiction. In International (a. 4urisdiction is often defined as t,e lig,t of a "tate to e1ercise aut,ority
over -ersons and t,ings .it,in its +oundaries su+4ect to certain e1ce-tions. 0,us a "tate does not assume
4urisdiction over travelling sovereigns am+assadors and di-lomatic re-resentatives of ot,er "tates and foreign
military units stationed in or marc,ing t,roug, "tate territory .it, t,e -ermission of t,e latterEs aut,orities. 0,is
aut,ority .,ic, finds its source in t,e conce-t of sovereignty is e1clusive .it,in and t,roug,out t,e domain of
t,e "tate. * "tate is com-etent to ta8e ,old of any 4udicial matter it sees fit +y ma8ing its courts and agencies
assume 4urisdiction over all 8inds of cases +roug,t +efore t,em
NOTES:
0,e res-ondent I*C li8e.ise ruled t,at:
U In a conflict -ro+lem a court .ill sim-ly refuse to entertain t,e case if it is not aut,ori6ed +y la. to e1ercise
4urisdiction. *nd even if it is so aut,ori6ed it may still refuse to entertain t,e case +y a--lying t,e -rinci-le of
forum non conveniens. U
Ho.ever .,et,er a suit s,ould +e entertained or dismissed on t,e +asis of t,e -rinci-le of forum non
conveniens de-ends largely u-on t,e facts of t,e -articular case and is addressed to t,e sound discretion of t,e
trial court. 0,us t,e I*C s,ould not ,ave relied on suc, -rinci-le.
11vii
11viii
11i1
$ONGFONG AND S$ANG$AI BANFING CORPORATION I$SBCJ G(. S$ERAN et !/
G.R. No. <2;9;
A-+-(t 11, 1989
F!ct(: )astern 7oo8 Q "u--ly "ervice ("inga-ore# .as granted +y H"7C "inga-ore an overdraft facility.
",erman et. al. and directors of )astern 7oo8 e1ecuted a Joint and "everal Guarantee in favor of H"7C.
)astern 7oo8 defaulted. Hence H"7C filed a suit for collection against t,em +efore t,e Regional 0rial Court of
?ue6on City. ",erman filed a Cotion to ;ismiss on t,e ground of lac8 of 4urisdiction over t,e com-laint and
-ersons of t,e defendants. 0,e guarantee -rovides: A0,is guarantee and all rig,ts o+ligations and lia+ilities
arising ,ereunder s,all +e construed and determined under and may +e enforced in accordance .it, t,e la.s of
t,e Re-u+lic of "inga-ore.H
$e/#: <,ili--ine courts ,ave 4urisdiction over t,e suit. 0,e sti-ulation s,all +e li+erally construed. * sti-ulation as
to venue does not -reclude t,e filing of suits in t,e residence of -laintiff or defendant under "ec 9 (+# Rule & of
t,e Rules of Court in t,e !b(e"ce o. K-!/&.*&"+ or re(tr&ct&Ge 4or#( &" t'e !+ree5e"t 4'&c' &"#&c!te t'!t
t'e )/!ce "!5e# &( t'e o"/* Ge"-e !+ree# -)o" b* t'e )!rt&e(. 0,e -arties did not t,ere+y sti-ulate t,at only
t,e courts of "inga-ore to t,e e1clusion of all t,e rest ,ave 4urisdiction. /eit,er did t,e clause in @uestion
o-erate to divest <,ili--ine courts of 4urisdiction. In International (a. 4urisdiction is often defined as t,e rig,t of a
state to e1ercise aut,ority over -ersons and t,ings .it,in its +oundaries su+4ect to certain e1ce-tions. 0,is
aut,ority .,ic, finds its source in t,e conce-t of sovereignty is e1clusive .it,in and t,roug,out t,e domain of
t,e state. * state is com-etent to ta8e ,old of any 4udicial matter it sees fit +y ma8ing its courts and agencies
assume 4urisdiction over all 8inds of cases +roug,t +efore t,em.
$SBC G(. S$ERANG.R. No. <2;9; A-+-(t 11, 1989FACTS2
"ometime in 1981 )astern 7oo8 "u--ly "ervice <0) (td. (C=C<*/F# acom-any i ncor -or at ed
i n "i nga-or e a--l i ed .i t , and .as gr ant ed +y t ,e "inga-ore +ranc, of -etitioner 7*/D an
overdraft facility. *s a security for t,ere-ayment +y t,e C=C<*/F of sums advanced +y -etitioner
7*/D +ot, -rivateres-ondents and a certain Ro+in de Clive (o.e all of .,om .ere directors of
t,eC=C<*/F at suc, t i me e1ecut ed a Joi nt and "ever al Guar ant ee i n f avor
of -etitioner 7*/D .,ere+y -rivate res-ondents and (o.e agreed to -ay 4ointly andseverally on demand all
sums o.ed +y t,e C=C<*/F to -etitioner. 0,e Joint and"everal Guarantee contains a c,oice3of3forum3
clause t,at all rig,ts and o+ligationsari si ng f rom t ,e cont ract s,al l +e const rued and governed
under +y t ,e l a.sRe-u+lic of "inga-ore. 0,e C=C<*/F failed to -ay its o+ligation. 0,us -etitioner7*/D
demanded -ayment of t,e o+ligation from -rivate res-ondents. Inasmuc, ast,e -rivate res-ondents still
failed to -ay -etitioner 7*/D filed a com-laint forcollection of a sum of money against -rivate res-ondents
+efore t,e R0C of ?ue6onCi t y 7ranc, 8&. =n ;ecem+er 1& 198& -ri vat e res-ondent s f i l ed a
mot i on t odismiss on t,e grounds of lac8 of 4urisdiction over t,e su+4ect matter and over t,eir-ersons. "aid
motion .as denied. * motion for reconsideration of t,e said order .asfiled +y t,e -rivate res-ondents .,ic,
.as ,o.ever denied. <rivate res-ondentst ,en f i l ed +ef ore t ,e res-ondent I nt ermedi at e
*--el l at e Court a -et i t i on f or -ro,i+ition .it, -reliminary in4unction andIor -rayer for a restraining
order. 0,ea--ellate court granted t,e said -etition. Cotion for reconsideration .as denied ,ence t,is
for revie. on
certiorari.
ISSUE2
B,et,er or not <,ili--ine courts ,ave 4urisdiction over t,e suit.
RULING2
=ne +asic -rinci-le underlies all rules of 4urisdiction in International (a.: a"t at e does not ,ave 4 uri sdi ct i on
i n t ,e a+sence of some reasona+l e +asi s f or e1ercising it .,et,er t,e -roceedings are in rem
@uasi in rem
or
in -ersonam
. 0o+e reasona+le t,e 4urisdiction must +e +ased on some minimum contacts t,at .illnot offend traditional
notions of fair -lay and su+stantial 4ustice. Indeed as -ointed3out +y -etitioner 7*/D at t,e outset t,e instant
case -resents a very odd situation.In t,e ordinary ,a+its of life anyone .ould +e disinclined to litigate +efore a
foreignt r i +unal .i t , mor e r eason as a def endant . Ho.ever i n t ,i s case
-r i vat eres-ondents are <,ili--ine residents (a fact .,ic, .as not dis-uted +y t,em# .,o.oul d rat ,er f ace
a com-l ai nt agai nst t ,em +ef ore a f orei gn court and i n t ,e-rocess incur considera+le e1-enses not
to mention inconvenience t,an to ,ave a<,ili--ine court try and resolve t,e case. <rivate res-ondents5
stance is ,ardlycom-re,ensi +l e unl ess t ,ei r ul t i mat e i nt ent i s t o evade or at l east del ay t ,e
-ayment of a 4ust o+ligation.
G.R. No. <2;9; A-+-(t 11, 1989
$ONGFONG AND S$ANG$AI BANFING CORPORATION, -etitioner
vs.
,ACF ROBERT S$ERAN, DEODATO RELO, !"# T$E INTEREDIATE APPELLATE COURT, res-ondents.
Euiason, &akalintal, Barot @ 3orres for petitioner.
AleFandro, Aran>aso @ Associates for private respondents.

EDIALDEA, J.:
0,is is a -etition for revie. on certiorari of t,e decision of t,e Intermediate *--ellate Court (no. Court of
*--eals# dated *ugust 9 1985 .,ic, reversed t,e order of t,e Regional 0rial Court dated >e+ruary 981985
denying t,e Cotion to ;ismiss filed +y -rivate res-ondents Jac8 Ro+ert ",erman and ;eodato Relo4.
* com-laint for collection of a sum of money (--. &9359 Rollo# .as filed +y -etitioner Hong8ong and ",ang,ai
7an8ing Cor-oration (,ereinafter referred to as -etitioner 7*/D# against -rivate res-ondents Jac8 Ro+ert
",erman and ;eodato Relo4 doc8eted as Civil Case /o. ?3&985' +efore t,e Regional 0rial Court of ?ue6on
City 7ranc, 8&.
It a--ears t,at sometime in 1981 )astern 7oo8 "u--ly "ervice <0) (td. (,ereinafter referred to as
C=C<*/F# a com-any incor-orated in "inga-ore a--lied .it, and .as granted +y t,e "inga-ore +ranc, of
-etitioner 7*/D an overdraft facility in t,e ma1imum amount of "inga-ore dollars 9'''''.'' (.,ic, amount
.as su+se@uently increased to "inga-ore dollars $:5'''.''# .it, interest at $S over -etitioner 7*/D -rime
rate -aya+le mont,ly on amounts due under said overdraft facilityG as a security for t,e re-ayment +y t,e
C=C<*/F of sums advanced +y -etitioner 7*/D to it t,roug, t,e aforesaid overdraft facility on =cto+er :
1989 +ot, -rivate res-ondents and a certain Ro+in de Clive (o.e all of .,om .ere directors of t,e C=C<*/F
at suc, time e1ecuted a Joint and "everal Guarantee (-. 5$ Rollo# in favor of -etitioner 7*/D .,ere+y -rivate
res-ondents and (o.e agreed to -ay 4ointly and severally on demand all sums o.ed +y t,e C=C<*/F to
-etitioner 7*/D under t,e aforestated overdraft facility.
0,e Joint and "everal Guarantee -rovides inter alia t,at:
0,is guarantee and all rig,ts o+ligations and lia+ilities arising ,ereunder s,all +e
construed and determined under and may +e enforced in accordance .it, t,e la.s of
t,e Re-u+lic of "inga-ore. Be ,ere+y agree t,at t,e Courts of "inga-ore s,all ,ave
4urisdiction over all dis-utes arising under t,is guarantee. ... (-. $$3* Rollo#.
0,e C=C<*/F failed to -ay its o+ligation. 0,us -etitioner 7*/D demanded -ayment of t,e o+ligation from
-rivate res-ondents conforma+ly .it, t,e -rovisions of t,e Joint and "everal Guarantee. Inasmuc, as t,e
-rivate res-ondents still failed to -ay -etitioner 7*/D filed t,e a+ove3mentioned com-laint.
=n ;ecem+er 1&198& -rivate res-ondents filed a motion to dismiss (-- 5&35% Rollo# .,ic, .as o--osed +y
-etitioner 7*/D (--. 583%9 Rollo#. *cting on t,e motion t,e trial court issued an order dated >e+ruary 98 1985
(-- %&3%5 Rollo# .,ic, read as follo.s:
In a Cotion to ;ismiss filed on ;ecem+er 1& 198& t,e defendants see8 t,e dismissal
of t,e com-laint on t.o grounds namely:
1. 0,at t,e court ,as no 4urisdiction over t,e su+4ect matter of t,e com-laintG and
9. 0,at t,e court ,as no 4urisdiction over t,e -ersons of t,e defendants.
In t,e lig,t of t,e =--osition t,ereto filed +y -laintiff t,e Court finds no merit in t,e
motion. 2=n t,e first ground defendants claim t,at +y virtue of t,e -rovision in t,e
Guarantee (t,e actiona+le document# .,ic, reads N
0,is guarantee and all rig,ts o+ligations and lia+ilities arising
,ereunder s,all +e construed and determined under and may +e
enforced in accordance .it, t,e la.s of t,e Re-u+lic of "inga-ore. Be
,ere+y agree t,at t,e courts in "inga-ore s,all ,ave 4urisdiction over all
dis-utes arising under t,is guarantee
t,e Court ,as no 4urisdiction over t,e su+4ect matter of t,e case. 0,e Court finds and
concludes ot,er.ise. 0,ere is not,ing in t,e Guarantee .,ic, says t,at t,e courts of
"inga-ore s,all ,ave 4urisdiction to t,e e1clusion of t,e courts of ot,er countries or
nations. *lso it ,as long +een esta+lis,ed in la. and 4uris-rudence t,at 4urisdiction of
courts is fi1ed +y la.G it cannot +e conferred +y t,e .ill su+mission or consent of t,e
-arties.
=n t,e second ground it is asserted t,at defendant Ro+ert5 ",erman is not a citi6en
nor a resident of t,e <,ili--ines. 0,is argument ,olds no .ater. Jurisdiction over t,e
-ersons of defendants is ac@uired +y service of summons and co-y of t,e com-laint on
t,em. 0,ere ,as +een a valid service of summons on +ot, defendants and in fact t,e
same is admitted .,en said defendants filed a 5Cotion for )1tension of 0ime to >ile
Res-onsive <leading on ;ecem+er 5 198&.
BH)R)>=R) t,e Cotion to ;ismiss is ,ere+y ;)/I);.
"= =R;)R);.
* motion for reconsideration of t,e said order .as filed +y -rivate res-ondents .,ic, .as ,o.ever denied (-.
%% Rollo#.
<rivate res-ondents t,en filed +efore t,e res-ondent Intermediate *--ellate Court (no. Court of *--eals# a
-etition for -ro,i+ition .it, -reliminary in4unction andIor -rayer for a restraining order (--. $93&8 Rollo#. =n
*ugust 9 1985 t,e res-ondent Court rendered a decision (-. $: Rollo# t,e dis-ositive -ortion of .,ic, reads:
BH)R)>=R) t,e -etition for -ro,i+ition .it, -reliminary in4uction is ,ere+y
GR*/0);. 0,e res-ondent Court is en4oined from ta8ing furt,er cogni6ance of t,e
case and to dismiss t,e same for filing .it, t,e -ro-er court of "inga-ore .,ic, is t,e
-ro-er forum. /o costs.
"= =R;)R);.
0,e motion for reconsideration .as denied (-. $8 Rollo# ,ence t,e -resent -etition.
0,e main issue is .,et,er or not <,ili--ine courts ,ave 4urisdiction over t,e suit.
0,e controversy stems from t,e inter-retation of a -rovision in t,e Joint and "everal Guarantee to .it:
(1&# 0,is guarantee and all rig,ts o+ligations and lia+ilites arising ,ereunder s,all +e
construed and determined under and may +e enforced in accordance .it, t,e la.s of
t,e Re-u+lic of "inga-ore. Be ,ere+y agree t,at t,e Courts in "inga-ore s,all ,ave
4urisdiction over all dis-utes arising under t,is guarantee. ... (-. 5$3* Rollo#
In rendering t,e decision in favor of -rivate res-ondents t,e Court of *--eals made t,e follo.ing o+servations
(--. $53$% Rollo#:
0,ere are significant as-ects of t,e case to .,ic, our attention is invited. 0,e loan .as
o+tained +y )astern 7oo8 "ervice <0) (td. a com-any incor-orated in 4in'apore. 0,e
loan .as granted +y t,e 4in'apore 7ranc, of Hong8ong and ",ang,ai 7an8ing
Cor-oration. 0,e Joint and "everal Guarantee .as also concluded in 4in'apore. 0,e
loan .as in "inga-orean dollars and t,e re-ayment t,ereof also in t,e same currency.
0,e transaction to say t,e least too8 -lace in "ing-orean setting in .,ic, t,e la. of
t,at country is t,e measure +y .,ic, t,at relations,i- of t,e -arties .ill +e governed.
111 111 111
Contrary to t,e -osition ta8en +y res-ondents t,e guarantee agreement com-liance
t,at any litigation .ill +e +efore t,e courts of "inga-ore and t,at t,e rig,ts and
o+ligations of t,e -arties s,all +e construed and determined in accordance .it, t,e la.s
of t,e Re-u+lic of "inga-ore. * closer e1amination of -aragra-, 1& of t,e Guarantee
*greement u-on .,ic, t,e motion to dismiss is +ased em-loys in clear and
unmista8ea+le (sic# terms t,e .ord 5s,all5 .,ic, under statutory construction is
mandatory.
0,us it .as ruled t,at:
... t,e .ord 5s,all5 is im-erative o-erating to im-ose a duty .,ic, may +e enforced
(;i6on vs. )ncarnacion 9 "CR* :1&#.lG*phH+.IJt
0,ere is not,ing more im-erative and restrictive t,an .,at t,e agreement categorically
commands t,at 5all rig,ts o+ligations and lia+ilities arising ,ereunder shall +e
construed and determined under and may +e enforced in accordance .it, t,e la*s of
the Repu!lic of 4in'apore.5
B,ile it is true t,at 2t,e transaction too8 -lace in "inga-orean setting2 and t,at t,e Joint and "everal Guarantee
contains a c,oice3of3forum clause t,e very essence of due -rocess dictates t,at t,e sti-ulation t,at 2OtP,is
guarantee and all rig,ts o+ligations and lia+ilities arising ,ereunder s,all +e construed and determined under
and may +e enforced in accordance .it, t,e la.s of t,e Re-u+lic of "inga-ore. Be ,ere+y agree t,at t,e Courts
in "inga-ore s,all ,ave 4urisdiction over all dis-utes arising under t,is guarantee2 +e li+erally construed. =ne
+asic -rinci-le underlies all rules of 4urisdiction in International (a.: a "tate does not ,ave 4urisdiction in t,e
a+sence of some reasona+le +asis for e1ercising it .,et,er t,e -roceedings are in rem quasi in rem or in
personam. 0o +e reasona+le t,e 4urisdiction must +e +ased on some minimum contacts t,at .ill not offend
traditional notions of fair -lay and su+stantial 4ustice (J. "alonga <rivate International (a. 1981 -. &%#. Indeed
as -ointed3out +y -etitioner 7*/D at t,e outset t,e instant case -resents a very odd situation. In t,e ordinary
,a+its of life anyone .ould +e disinclined to litigate +efore a foreign tri+unal .it, more reason as a defendant.
Ho.ever in t,is case -rivate res-ondents are <,ili--ine residents (a fact .,ic, .as not dis-uted +y t,em# .,o
.ould rat,er face a com-laint against t,em +efore a foreign court and in t,e -rocess incur considera+le
e1-enses not to mention inconvenience t,an to ,ave a <,ili--ine court try and resolve t,e case. <rivate
res-ondents5 stance is ,ardly com-re,ensi+le unless t,eir ultimate intent is to evade or at least delay t,e
-ayment of a 4ust o+ligation.
0,e defense of -rivate res-ondents t,at t,e com-laint s,ould ,ave +een filed in "inga-ore is +ased merely on
tec,nicality. 0,ey did not even claim muc, less -rove t,at t,e filing of t,e action ,ere .ill cause t,em any
unnecessary trou+le damage or e1-ense. =n t,e ot,er ,and t,ere is no s,o.ing t,at -etitioner 7*/D filed t,e
action ,ere 4ust to ,arass -rivate res-ondents.
In t,e case of Pol#trade Corporation vs. Blanco G.R. /o. (39:'$$ =cto+er $1 19%9 $' "CR* 18: it .as
ruled:
... *n accurate reading ,o.ever of t,e sti-ulation 50,e -arties agree to sue and +e
sued in t,e Courts of Canila5 does not -reclude t,e filing of suits in t,e residence of
-laintiff or defendant. 0,e -lain meaning is t,at t,e -arties merely consented to +e sued
in Canila. ?ualifying or restrictive .ords .,ic, .ould indicate t,at Canila and Canila
alone is t,e venue are totally a+sent t,erefrom. Be cannot read into t,at clause t,at
-laintiff and defendant +ound t,emselves to file suits .it, res-ect to t,e last t.o
transactions in @uestion only or e1clusively in Canila. >or t,at agreement did not
c,ange or transfer venue. It sim-ly is -ermissive. 0,e -arties solely agreed to add t,e
courts of Canila as tri+unals to .,ic, t,ey may resort. 0,ey did not .aive t,eir rig,t to
-ursue remedy in t,e courts s-ecifically mentioned in "ection 9(+# of Rule &.
Renuntiatio non praesumitur.
0,is ruling .as reiterated in t,e case of Neville K. $amis nts., et al. v. $a'amon, etc., et al. G.R. /o. 5:95'
=cto+er $' 1981 1'8 "CR* :&' .,ere t,e sti-ulation .as 2OiPn case of litigation 4urisdiction s,all +e vested in
t,e Court of ;avao City.2 Be ,eld:
*nent t,e claim t,at ;avao City ,ad +een sti-ulated as t,e venue suffice it to say t,at a
sti-ulation as to venue does not -reclude t,e filing of suits in t,e residence of -laintiff or
defendant under "ection 9 (+# Rule & Rules of Court in t,e a+sence of @ualifying or
restrictive .ords in t,e agreement .,ic, .ould indicate t,at t,e -lace named is t,e only
venue agreed u-on +y t,e -arties.
*--lying t,e foregoing to t,e case at +ar t,e -arties did not t,ere+y sti-ulate t,at only t,e courts of "inga-ore
to t,e e1clusion of all t,e rest ,as 4urisdiction. /eit,er did t,e clause in @uestion o-erate to divest <,ili--ine
courts of 4urisdiction. In International (a. 4urisdiction is often defined as t,e lig,t of a "tate to e1ercise aut,ority
over -ersons and t,ings .it,in its +oundaries su+4ect to certain e1ce-tions. 0,us a "tate does not assume
4urisdiction over travelling sovereigns am+assadors and di-lomatic re-resentatives of ot,er "tates and foreign
military units stationed in or marc,ing t,roug, "tate territory .it, t,e -ermission of t,e latter5s aut,orities. 0,is
aut,ority .,ic, finds its source in t,e conce-t of sovereignty is e1clusive .it,in and t,roug,out t,e domain of
t,e "tate. * "tate is com-etent to ta8e ,old of any 4udicial matter it sees fit +y ma8ing its courts and agencies
assume 4urisdiction over all 8inds of cases +roug,t +efore t,em (J. "alonga <rivate International (a. 1981 --.
$:3$8#.lG*phH+.IJt
*s regards t,e issue on im-ro-er venue -etitioner 7*/D avers t,at t,e o+4ection to im-ro-er venue ,as +een
.aived. Ho.ever Be agree .it, t,e ruling of t,e res-ondent Court t,at:
B,ile in t,e main t,e motion to dismiss fails to categorically use .it, e1actitude t,e
.ords 5im-ro-er venue5 it can +e -erceived from t,e general t,rust and conte1t of t,e
motion t,at .,at is meant is im-ro-er venue 0,e use of t,e .ord 54urisdiction5 .as
merely an attem-t to co-y3cat t,e same .ord em-loyed in t,e guarantee agreement +ut
conveys t,e conce-t of venue. 7rus,ing aside all tec,nicalities it .ould a--ear t,at
4urisdiction .as used loosely as to +e synonymous .it, venue. It is in t,is s-irit t,at t,is
Court must vie. t,e motion to dismiss. ... (-. $5 Rollo#.
*t any rate t,is issue is no. of no moment +ecause Be ,old t,at venue ,ere .as -ro-erly laid for t,e same
reasons discussed a+ove.
0,e res-ondent Court li8e.ise ruled t,at (--. $%3$: Rollo#:
... In a conflict -ro+lem a court .ill sim-ly refuse to entertain t,e case if it is not
aut,ori6ed +y la. to e1ercise 4urisdiction. *nd even if it is so aut,ori6ed it may still
refuse to entertain t,e case +y a--lying t,e -rinci-le of forum non conveniens. ...
Ho.ever .,et,er a suit s,ould +e entertained or dismissed on t,e +asis of t,e -rinci-le of forum non
conveniens de-ends largely u-on t,e facts of t,e -articular case and is addressed to t,e sound discretion of t,e
trial court (J. "alonga <rivate International (a. 1981 -. &9#.lG*phH+.IJt 0,us t,e res-ondent Court s,ould not
,ave relied on suc, -rinci-le.
*lt,oug, t,e Joint and "everal Guarantee -re-ared +y -etitioner 7*/D is a contract of ad,esion and t,at
conse@uently it cannot +e -ermitted to ta8e a stand contrary to t,e sti-ulations of t,e contract su+stantial +ases
e1ist for -etitioner 7an85s c,oice of forum as discussed earlier.
(astly -rivate res-ondents allege t,at neit,er t,e -etitioner +ased at Hong8ong nor its <,ili--ine +ranc, is
involved in t,e transaction sued u-on. 0,is is a vain attem-t on t,eir -art to furt,er t,.art t,e -roceedings +elo.
inasmuc, as .ell38no.n is t,e rule t,at a defendant cannot -lead any defense t,at ,as not +een inter-osed in
t,e court +elo..
*CC=R;I/G(F t,e decision of t,e res-ondent Court is ,ere+y R)L)R"); and t,e decision of t,e Regional
0rial Court is R)I/"0*0); .it, costs against -rivate res-ondents. 0,is decision is immediately e1ecutory.
"= =R;)R);.