ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia G.

Ikdal

Facts:

-Respondent Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI in behalf of its principal co-petitioner, Ministry of Public
Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical technologist under a two-year contract.

-Within a year, Respondent was terminated for not passing the probationary period which was under the
Memorandum of Agreement. Ministry denied respondent‘s request and she returned to the Philippines
shouldering her own fare.

-Respondent filed with the NLRC a complaint against ATCI for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter rendered
judgment in favor of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay her, her salary for the three months unexpired
portion of the contract.

-ATCI appealed Labor Arbiter‘s decision, however, NLRC affirmed the latter‘s decision and denied
petitioner ATCI‘s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Court Appeals contending that
their principal being a foreign government agency is immune from suit, and as such, immunity extended
to them.

-Appellate Court affirmed NLRC‘s decision. It noted that under the law, a private employment agency
shall assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas
worker; hence, it can be sued jointly and severally with the foreign principal for any violation of the
recruitment agreement or contract of employment. Petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration was denied;
hence, this present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Memorandum of Agreement which provided for the Kuwaits Civil Service
Board Employment Contract No. 2 has a binding effect.

HELD: The petition is DENIED.

RATIO: No. The petitioners’ contention that Philippine labor laws on probationary employment are not
applicable since it was expressly provided in respondents employment contract was not substantiated. It
is hornbook principle, that the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the
law, under the doctrine of processual presumption which, in this case, petitioners failed to discharge.

It was held in EDI-Staffbuilders Intl., v. NLRC that, in international law, the party who wants to have a
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is
treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take
judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law.

The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be alleged; they
must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitioners submit documents that
whether taken singly or as a whole, do not sufficiently prove that respondent was validly terminated as a
probationary employee under Kuwaiti civil service laws. For it to have a binding effect, the petitioners
should prove and present the pertinent Kuwaiti labor laws duly authenticated and translated by Embassy
officials.