You are on page 1of 6

[LABOR] Pacific Consultants International, Jens Henrichsen v. Klaus K. Schonfeld.

Klaus K. Schonfeld
Canadian Citizen
Resident of New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Had been a consultant in the field of environmental engineering and water supply
and sanitation.
Pacicon Philippines, Inc. (PPI)
Corporation in the Philippines
subsidiary of Pacific Int’l of Japan (PCIJ)
Engaged in the business of providing specialty and technical services both in and out
of the Philippines
PPI’s President, Jens Henrichsen, also a director of PCIJ
was based in Japan
commuted from Japan to Manila, vice versa
PCIJ, 1997
Decided to engage in consultancy services for water and sanitation in the
Philippines.
Employed Klaus K. Schonfeld, through Jen Henrichsen, as PPI’s Sector Manager of
Water and Sanitation Department
Assigned in the Philippines (where PPI will have to provide a separate contract, but
which embodies the terms and conditions of the contract pf Schonfeld with PCIJ)
His salary was to be paid partly by PPI and PCIJ.
U$7,000/mo
U$2,100 by Pacicon
U$4,900 by PCIJ
Any question of intepretation, understanding or fulfillment of conditions of
employment, shall be finally settled by Court of Arbitration in London

other monetary benefits . May 1999 sent letter to Schonfeld.PPI As required by Rule XIV po the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. requested Schonfeld to still stay put even after Aug 4 1999. has received his due compensation PPI’s President Jens Henrichsen. Feb 1999 granted application issued the Permit valid until Jan 2000 Schonfeld Prior Permit. Problem Schonfeld worked until Oct 1999 but was only partially paid of his several money claims. until such time that he would be able to report on certain projects and discuss all the opportunities Henrichsen had developed. But. terminated his services effective Aug 4 1999 Reason: a) PCIJ and PPI had not been successful in the water and sanitation sector in the Philippines. Applied for an Alien Employment Permit before the DOLE DOLE. Complaint before LA against PPI and Henrichsen Illegal Dismissal. having worked for PPI upon execution of their contract. separation pay.

(i) Schonfeld was a Canadian citizen. b) PPI and Henrichsen failed to notify him that his employment was terminated after August 4. (ii) Schonfeld was employed and dismissed by PCIJ.a) PPI had not notified the DOLE of its decision to close one of its departments. c) although Henrichsen was both a director of PCIJ and president of PPI. PCIJ's letterhead was used to inform him that his employment was terminated d) PPI only served as a conduit. any employment-related dispute should be brought before the London Court of Arbitration. Japan. b) PCIJ paid respondent's salaries and only coursed it through PPI. which resulted in his dismissal. as per agreed in the contract. Made only for accommodation in favor of PCIJ Schonfeld’s Reply a) Employed by PPI to work in the Philippines under contract separate from his January 7. it was he who signed the termination letter of respondent upon instructions of PCIJ. e) Employment Permit issued by DOLE to Schonfeld was not sufficient proof that he was an employee of PPI. c) PPI acted in BF in dismissing him from PPI and Henrichsen a) Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the venue was improperly laid. . Since Schonfeld's cause of action was based on his letter of employment executed in Japan under the principle of lex loci contractus. a foreign corporation with principal office in Tokyo. Japan. 1999. the complaint should have been filed in Tokyo. (iii) Further. 1998 contract of employment with PCIJ.

especially if the lower courts. even if parties declared in the contract.b) It is inconsequential that PPI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PCIJ The two corporations still have separate and distinct personalities. who was president of PPI d) Phil. labor laws shall apply in this case LA In favor of PCIJ The contract of employment between respondent and PCIJ was controlling Philippines was only the "duty station" where Schonfeld was required to work PCIJ remained respondent's employer despite his having been sent to the Philippines Due to their agreement. c) Received instruction from Henrichsen. the parties were not precluded from bringing a case related thereto in other venues. misappreciated the evidence to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion . even if the lower courts concurred in the finding of facts. the venue is not exclusive SC In favor of Schonfeld 1) the CA is not proscribed from reviewing the evidence on record. the matter must be settled in Court of Arbitration in London NLRC Affirmed CA Found for Schonfeld a) Applied four-fold test PPI was employer of Schonfel b) as to venue.

2) Alien Employment Permit a) Section 4. 2. That he shall not engage in any gainful employment other than that for which he was issued a permit. Otherwise. and 3. Thus estopped from alleging that the PCIJ. power to terminate the employment relationship was exercised by the President of .” b) In CAB Schonfeld had an employment contract with PPI. he may only be allowed to be employed upon presentation of a duly approved employment permit.” " Requirements for employment permit applicants.a) In CAB. and 5 Rule XIV (Employment of Aliens) of the Omnibus Rules provides: "No alien seeking employment. If an alien enters the country under a non-working visa and wishes to be employed thereafter. — The application for an employment permit shall be accompanied by the following: … (b) Contract of employment between the employer and the principal which shall embody the following. That the non-resident alien worker and the employer shall bind themselves to train at least two (2) Filipino understudies for a period to be determined by the Minister. had been the employer of respondent all along. whether as a resident or non-resident. may enter the Philippines without first securing an employment permit from the Ministry. among others: 1. Labor Arbiter and the NLRC merely focused on the Letter of Employment and the General Conditions of Employment. 3) Employer-Employee Relationship with PPI a) applying the four-fold test the power to control and supervise petitioner's work performance devolved upon the PPI. PPI would not have filed an application for a Permit with the DOLE. That the non-resident alien worker shall comply with all applicable laws and rules and regulations of the Philippines. not PPI.

but the person who exercised the power to terminate the employee." "particularly. it is properly considered as defense .the PPI." "exclusively in this court. it does not. They are not exclusive but. In CAB. there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them." "solely. 4) As to the venue. not as limiting venue to the specified place. as a rule." "in no other court save —. b) If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum. no restrictive words like "only. It is not the letterhead used by the company in the termination letter which controls. hence. Tensuan While stipulations regarding venue is considered valid and enforceable. a) As per Philippine Banking Corporation v. The Labor Code does not include forum non conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. rather permissive." "nowhere else but/except —. supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination." or words of equal import were stated in the contract ***HOW ABOUT THE QUALIFIER : “FINALLY”??? 5) As to the aplication of the principle of forum non conveniens Rejected.