17. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, vs. FLORENCE O.

CABANSAG GR 157010 June 21, 2005

FACTS:
Florence Cabansag went to Singapore as a tourist and applied for employment, with the
Singapore Branch of the Philippine National Bank, a private banking corporation organized and
existing in the Philippines. PNB Singapore offered her a temporary appointment that she will be
on probation for 3 consecutive months.
Florence O. Cabansag accepted the position and assumed office. She was issued an Overseas
Employment Certificate, certifying that she was a bona fide contract worker. However, for
about three (3) months of working she was advice to resign from her job for the reason that the
PNB Singapore Branch will be sold or transformed into a remittance office.
The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of her. PNB appealed the labor arbiters Decision
to the NLRC.
The CA ruled that petitioner bank had failed to adduce in evidence the Singaporean law
supposedly governing the latter’s employment Contract with respondent. According to the CA,
even though respondent secured an employment pass from the Singapore Ministry of
Employment, she did not thereby waive Philippine labor laws, or the jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter or the NLRC over her Complaint for illegal dismissal. Neither did she submit herself
solely to the Ministry of Manpower of Singapore’s jurisdiction over disputes arising from her
employment.
Issues:
Whether or not the arbitration branch of the NLRC has jurisdiction;
RULING:
Yes. Labor arbiters clearly have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from
employer-employee relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among
whom are overseas Filipino workers (OFW). We are not unmindful of the fact that respondent
was directly hired, while on a tourist status in Singapore, by the PNB branch in that city state.
Prior to employing respondent, petitioner had to obtain an employment pass for her from the
Singapore Ministry of Manpower. Securing the pass was a regulatory requirement pursuant to
the immigration regulations of that country. Similarly, the Philippine government requires non-
Filipinos working in the country to first obtain a local work permit in order to be legally
employed here. That permit, however, does not automatically mean that the non-citizen is
thereby bound by local laws only, as averred by petitioner. It does not at all imply a waiver of
ones national laws on labor. Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, such
permit simply means that its holder has a legal status as a worker in the issuing country.