Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio

1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746
G.R. No. 198587. January 14, 2015.*

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) and BRENDA J.
BETIA, petitioners, vs. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO,
MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A.
CRISTOBAL and LORAINE S. SCHNEIDERCRUZ,
respondents.
Conflict of Laws; Corporations; Foreign Corporations Doing

Business in the Philippines; Foreign Investments Act; A plain
application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Investments Act leads to
no other conclusion than that Saudia is a foreign corporation
doing business in the Philippines. As such, Saudia may be sued in
the Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine
tribunals.—By its own admission, Saudia, while a foreign
corporation, has a Philippine office. Section 3(d) of Republic Act
No. 7042, otherwise known as the Foreign Investments Act of
1991, provides the following: The phrase “doing business”
shall include . . . opening offices, whether called “liaison”
offices or branches; . . . and any other act or acts that imply a
continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements and
contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or
the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in
progressive prosecution of commercial gain or of the purpose and
object of the business organization. (Emphasis supplied) A plain
application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Investments Act leads to
no other conclusion than that Saudia is a foreign corporation
doing business in the Philippines. As such, Saudia may be sued in
the Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine
tribunals.
Same; Contracts; Transnational transactions entail differing
laws on the requirements for the validity of the formalities and
substantive provisions of contracts and their interpretation.—
Transnational transactions entail differing laws on the
requirements for the validity of the formalities and substantive
provisions of contracts and their interpretation. These
transactions inevitably lend themselves to the possibility of
various fora for litigation and dispute resolution. As observed by
an eminent expert on transnational law:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689cabcb5e8d865619003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/48
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
141
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 141

Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) vs. Rebesencio
The more jurisdictions having an interest in, or merely even a

point of contact with, a transaction or relationship, the greater
the number of potential fora for the resolution of disputes arising
out of or related to that transaction or relationship. In a world of
increased mobility, where business and personal transactions
transcend national boundaries, the jurisdiction of a number of
different fora may easily be invoked in a single or a set of related
disputes.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Forum Shopping; In the
Philippines, the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provide for willful
and deliberate forum shopping as a ground not only for summary
dismissal with prejudice but also for citing parties and counsels in
direct contempt, as well as for the imposition of administrative
sanctions.— In the Philippines, the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
provide for willful and deliberate forum shopping as a ground not
only for summary dismissal with prejudice but also for citing
parties and counsels in direct contempt, as well as for the
imposition of administrative sanctions. Likewise, the same rules
expressly provide that a party may seek the dismissal of a
Complaint or another pleading asserting a claim on the ground
“[t]hat there is another action pending between the same parties
for the same cause,” i.e, litis pendentia, or “[t]hat the cause of
action is barred by a prior judgment,” i.e., res judicata.
Conflict of Laws; Forum Non Conveniens; The doctrine of
forum non conveniens addresses the same rationale that the rule
against forum shopping does, albeit on a multijurisdictional scale.
—Forum non conveniens literally translates to “the forum is
inconvenient.” It is a concept in private international law and was
devised to combat the “less than honorable” reasons and excuses
that litigants use to secure procedural advantages, annoy and
harass defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and select a
“friendlier” venue. Thus, the doctrine of forum non conveniens
addresses the same rationale that the rule against forum
shopping does, albeit on a multijurisdictional scale. Forum non
conveniens, like res judicata, is a concept originating in common
law. However, unlike the rule on res judicata, as well as those on
litis pendentia and forum shopping, forum non conveniens finds
no textual anchor, whether in statute or in procedural rules, in
our civil law system. Nevertheless, jurisprudence has applied

forum non conveniens as basis for a court to decline its exercise of
jurisdiction.
142
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, “a

court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its juris-
diction where it is not the most ‘convenient’ or available forum and
the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.”—
Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, “a court,
in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
where it is “not the most ‘convenient’ or available forum and the
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.” In
Puyat v. Zabarte, 352 SCRA 738 (2001), this court recognized the
following situations as among those that may warrant a court’s
desistance from exercising jurisdiction: 1) The belief that the
matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because
the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or
the material witnesses have their residence there; 2) The belief
that the nonresident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice
known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure procedural
advantages or to convey or harass the defendant; 3) The
unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to nonresidents or
aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded; 4) The
inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the
right sought to be maintained; and 5) The difficulty of
ascertaining foreign law.
Same; Contracts; Principle of Autonomy of Contracts; Article
1306 of the Civil Code expressly provides that “[t]the contracting
parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient.”—Our law on contracts
recognizes the validity of contractual choice of law provisions.
Where such provisions exist, Philippine tribunals, acting as the
forum court, generally defer to the parties’ articulated choice. This
is consistent with the fundamental principle of autonomy of
contracts. Article 1306 of the Civil Code expressly provides that
“[t]he contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient.”
Nevertheless, while a Philippine tribunal (acting as the forum
court) is called upon to respect the parties’ choice of governing
law, such respect must not be so permissive as to lose sight of
considerations of law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy that underlie the contract central to the controversy.
143
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 143

International Law; Convention on the Elimination of all

Forms of Discrimination Against Women; The Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), signed and ratified by the Philippines on July 15, 1980,
and on August 5, 1981, respectively, is part of the law of the land.
—Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides that
“[t]he State . . . shall ensure the fundamental equality before the
law of women and men.” Contrasted with Article II, Section 1 of
the 1987 Constitution’s statement that “[n]o person shall . . . be
denied the equal protection of the laws,” Article II, Section 14
exhorts the State to “ensure.” This does not only mean that the
Philippines shall not countenance nor lend legal recognition and
approbation to measures that discriminate on the basis of one’s
being male or female. It imposes an obligation to actively engage
in securing the fundamental equality of men and women. The
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW), signed and ratified by the Philippines
on July 15, 1980, and on August 5, 1981, respectively, is part of
the law of the land. In view of the widespread signing and
ratification of, as well as adherence (in practice) to it by states, it
may even be said that many provisions of the CEDAW may have
become customary international law.
Constitutional Law; Equal Protection of the Laws; Apart from
the constitutional policy on the fundamental equality before the
law of men and women, it is settled that contracts relating to labor
and employment are impressed with public interest.—Apart from
the constitutional policy on the fundamental equality before the
law of men and women, it is settled that contracts relating to
labor and employment are impressed with public interest. Article
1700 of the Civil Code provides that “[t]he relation between
capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so
impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to
the common good.”
Conflict of Laws; As the present dispute relates to (what the
respondents allege to be) the illegal termination of respondents’
employment, this case is immutably a matter of public interest and
public policy. Consistent with clear pronouncements in law and
jurisprudence, Philippine laws properly find application in and
govern this case.—As the present dispute relates to (what the
respondents allege to be) the illegal termination of respondents’
employment, this case is immutably a matter of public interest

and
144

public policy. Consistent with clear pronouncements in law

and jurisprudence, Philippine laws properly find application in
and govern this case. Moreover, as this premise for Saudia’s
insistence on the application forum non conveniens has been
shattered, it follows that Philippine tribunals may properly
assume jurisdiction over the present controversy.
Same; Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion,
that it is the laws of Saudi Arabia which should apply, it does not
follow that Philippine tribunals should refrain from exercising
jurisdiction.—As the question of applicable law has been settled,
the supposed difficulty of ascertaining foreign law (which requires
the application of forum non conveniens) provides no
insurmountable inconvenience or special circumstance that will
justify depriving Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction. Even if we
were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is the laws of
Saudi Arabia which should apply, it does not follow that
Philippine tribunals should refrain from exercising jurisdiction.
To recall our pronouncements in Puyat, as well as in Bank of
America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals, 400 SCRA 156 (2003), it is
not so much the mere applicability of foreign law which calls into
operation forum non conveniens. Rather, what justifies a court’s
desistance from exercising jurisdiction is “[t]he difficulty of
ascertaining foreign law” or the inability of a “Philippine Court
. . . to make an intelligent decision as to the law[.]” Consistent
with lex loci intentionis, to the extent that it is proper and
practicable (i.e., “to make an intelligent decision”), Philippine
tribunals may apply the foreign law selected by the parties. In
fact, (albeit without meaning to make a pronouncement on the
accuracy and reliability of respondents’ citation) in this case,
respondents themselves have made averments as to the laws of
Saudi Arabia.
Same; The immense public policy considerations attendant to
this case behoove Philippine tribunals to not shy away from their
duty to rule on the case.—All told, the considerations for
assumption of jurisdiction by Philippine tribunals as outlined in
Bank of America NT&SA have been satisfied. First, all the parties
are based in the Philippines and all the material incidents
transpired in this jurisdiction. Thus, the parties may conveniently
seek relief from Philippine tribunals. Second, Philippine tribunals
are in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and

the facts. Third, Philippine tribunals are in a position to enforce
their decisions. There is no
145
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 145

compelling basis for ceding jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal.

Quite the contrary, the immense public policy considerations
attendant to this case behoove Philippine tribunals to not shy
away from their duty to rule on the case.
Labor Law; Maternity Leave; The very nature of a maternity
leave means that a pregnant employee will not report for work only
temporarily and that she will resume the performance of her duties
as soon as the leave allowance expires.—Applying the cited
standards on resignation and constructive dismissal, it is clear
that respondents were constructively dismissed. Hence, their
termination was illegal. The termination of respondents’
employment happened when they were pregnant and expecting to
incur costs on account of child delivery and infant rearing. As
noted by the Court of Appeals, pregnancy is a time when they
need employment to sustain their families. Indeed, it goes against
normal and reasonable human behavior to abandon one’s
livelihood in a time of great financial need. It is clear that
respondents intended to remain employed with Saudia. All they
did was avail of their maternity leaves. Evidently, the very nature
of a maternity leave means that a pregnant employee will not
report for work only temporarily and that she will resume the
performance of her duties as soon as the leave allowance expires.
It is also clear that respondents exerted all efforts to remain
employed with Saudia. Each of them repeatedly filed appeal
letters (as much as five [5] letters in the case of Rebesencio)
asking Saudia to reconsider the ultimatum that they resign or be
terminated along with the forfeiture of their benefits. Some of
them even went to Saudia’s office to personally seek
reconsideration.
Same; Termination of Employment; In termination of cases,
the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an
employee rests on the employer.—“In termination of cases, the
burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee
rests on the employer.” In this case, Saudia makes much of how
respondents supposedly completed their exit interviews, executed
quitclaims, received their separation pay, and took more than a
year to file their Complaint. If at all, however, these

circumstances prove only the fact of their occurrence, nothing
more. The voluntariness of respondents’ departure from Saudia is
non sequitur.
146

Same; Same; Quitclaims; As to respondents’ quitclaims, in

Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. v. Paramio, 427 SCRA
732 (2004), the Supreme Court (SC) noted that “[i]f (a) there is
clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or
gullible person; or (b) the terms of the settlement are
unconscionable, and on their face invalid, such quitclaims must be
struck down as invalid or illegal.”—As to respondents’ quitclaims,
in Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. v. Paramio, 427
SCRA 732 (2004), this court noted that “[i]f (a) there is clear proof
that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible
person; or (b) the terms of the settlement are unconscionable, and
on their face invalid, such quitclaims must be struck down as
invalid or illegal.” Respondents executed their quitclaims after
having been unfairly given an ultimatum to resign or be
terminated (and forfeit their benefits).
Same; Same; Illegal Dismissals; Backwages; Separation Pay;
Having been illegally and unjustly dismissed, respondents are
entitled to full backwages and benefits from the time of their
termination until the finality of this Decision. They are likewise
entitled to separation pay in the amount of one (1) month’s salary
for every year of service until the finality of this Decision, with a
fraction of a year of at least six (6) months being counted as one (1)
whole year.—Having been illegally and unjustly dismissed,
respondents are entitled to full backwages and benefits from the
time of their termination until the finality of this Decision. They
are likewise entitled to separation pay in the amount of one (1)
month’s salary for every year of service until the finality of this
Decision, with a fraction of a year of at least six (6) months being
counted as one (1) whole year.
Same; Same; Same; Moral Damages; Moral damages are
awarded in termination cases where the employee’s dismissal was
attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an
act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy.—“[M]oral damages are
awarded in termination cases where the employee’s dismissal was
attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an
act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy.” In this case, Saudia

terminated respondents’ employment in a manner that is patently
discriminatory and running afoul of the public interest that
underlies
147
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 147

employer-employee relationships. As such, respondents are

entitled to moral damages.
Same; Same; Same; Exemplary Damages; In a long line of
cases, the Supreme Court (SC) awarded exemplary damages to
illegally dismissed employees whose “dismissal[s were] effected in
a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.”—In a long line of
cases, this court awarded exemplary damages to illegally
dismissed employees whose “dismissal[s were] effected in a
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.” This court has
awarded exemplary damages to employees who were terminated
on such frivolous, arbitrary, and unjust grounds as membership
in or involvement with labor unions, injuries sustained in the
course of employment, development of a medical condition due to
the employer’s own violation of the employment contract, and
lodging of a Complaint against the employer. Exemplary damages
were also awarded to employees who were deemed illegally
dismissed by an employer in an attempt to evade compliance with
statutorily established employee benefits. Likewise, employees
dismissed for supposedly just causes, but in violation of due
process requirements, were awarded exemplary damages.
Same; Same; Same; Liability of Corporate Officers; As a rule,
corporate directors and officers are not liable for the illegal
termination of a corporation’s employees.—A corporation has a
personality separate and distinct from those of the persons
composing it. Thus, as a rule, corporate directors and officers are
not liable for the illegal termination of a corporation’s employees.
It is only when they acted in bad faith or with malice that they
become solidarily liable with the corporation.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Kapunan, Tamano, Javier & Associates for petitioners.
Altamira, Cas & Collado Law Offices for respondents.
148

LEONEN, J.:

All Filipinos are entitled to the protection of the rights
guaranteed in the Constitution.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari with
application for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure praying that judgment
be rendered reversing and setting aside the June 16, 2011
Decision1 and September 13, 2011 Resolution2 of the Court
of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 113006.
Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) is a foreign
corporation established and existing under the laws of
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has a Philippine office
located at 4/F, Metro House Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat
Avenue, Makati City.3 In its Petition filed with this court,
Saudia identified itself as follows:
1. Petitioner SAUDIA is a foreign corporation established and

existing under the Royal Decree No. M/24 of 18.07.1385H
(10.02.1962G) in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”). Its
Philippine Office is located at 4/F Metro House Building, Sen. Gil
J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City (Philippine Office). It may be served
with orders of this Honorable Court through undersigned counsel
at 4th and 6th Floors, Citibank Center Bldg., 8741 Paseo de
Roxas, Makati City.4 (Emphasis supplied)

Respondents (complainants before the Labor Arbiter)
were recruited and hired by Saudia as Temporary Flight
Attendants with the accreditation and approval of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.5 After
undergoing
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 61-75.

2 Id., at pp. 106-108.
3 Id., at p. 9.
4 Id.
5 Id., at p. 633.
149
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 149

seminars required by the Philippine Overseas

Employment Administration for deployment overseas, as
well as training modules offered by Saudia (e.g., initial
flight attendant/training course and transition training),
and after working as Temporary Flight Attendants,
respondents became Permanent Flight Attendants. They
then entered into Cabin Attendant contracts with Saudia:
Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio (Ma. Jopette) on May 16, 1990;6
Montassah B. Sacar-Adiong (Montassah) and Rouen Ruth
A. Cristobal (Rouen Ruth) on May 22, 1993;7 and Loraine
SchneiderCruz (Loraine) on August 27, 1995.8
Respondents continued their employment with Saudia
until they were separated from service on various dates in
2006.9
Respondents contended that the termination of their
employment was illegal. They alleged that the termination
was made solely because they were pregnant.10
As respondents alleged, they had informed Saudia of
their respective pregnancies and had gone through the
necessary procedures to process their maternity leaves.
Initially, Saudia had given its approval put later on
informed respondents that its management in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia had disapproved their maternity leaves. In
addition, it required respondents to file their resignation
letters.11
Respondents were told that if they did not resign,
Saudia would terminate them all the same. The threat of
termination entailed the loss of benefits, such as separation
pay and ticket discount entitlements.12
_______________
6 Id., at p. 596.
7 Id., at pp. 604 and 614.
8 Id., at p. 625.
9 Id., at p. 62.
10 Id., at p. 635.
11 Id., at pp. 600, 607-608, 618-619, and 627.
12 Id., at pp. 600, 608, 620, and 627.
150

Specifically, Ma. Jopette received a call on October 16,

2006 from Saudia’s Base Manager, Abdulmalik Saddik
(Abdulmalik).13 Montassah was informed personally by
Abdulmalik and a certain Faisal Hussein on October 20,
2006 after being required to report to the office one (1)
month into her maternity leave.14 Rouen Ruth was also
personally informed by Abdulmalik on October 17, 2006
after being required to report to the office by her Group
Supervisor.15 Loraine received a call on October 12, 2006
from her Group Supervisor, Dakila Salvador.16
Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents’
maternity leaves and demand for their resignation on its
“Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin
Attendants” (Unified Contract).17 Under the Unified
Contract, the employment of a Flight Attendant who
becomes pregnant is rendered void. It provides:
(H) Due to the essential nature of the Air Hostess functions to

be physically fit onboard to provide various services required in
normal or emergency cases on both domestic/international flights
beside her role in maintaining continuous safety and security of
passengers, and since she will not be able to maintain the required
medical fitness while at work in case of pregnancy, accordingly, if
the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time during the
term of this contract, this shall render her employment
contract as void and she will be terminated due to lack of
medical fitness.18 (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
13 Id., at p. 600.
14 Id., at pp. 607-608.
15 Id., at pp. 618-619.
16 Id., at p. 627.
17 Id., at pp. 736-740. The Unified Contract is attached to
Respondents’ Comment as Annex “ZZ.”
18 Id., at p. 739.
151
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 151

In their Comment on the present Petition,19 respondents

emphasized that the Unified Contract took effect on
September 23, 2006 (the first day of Ramadan),20 well after
they had filed and had their maternity leaves approved.
Ma. Jopette filed her maternity leave application on
September 5, 2006.21 Montassah filed her maternity leave

application on August 29, 2006, and its approval was
already indicated in Saudia’s computer system by August
30, 2006.22 Rouen Ruth filed her maternity leave
application on September 13, 2006,23 and Loraine filed her
maternity leave application on August 22, 2006.24
Rather than comply and tender resignation letters,
respondents filed separate appeal letters that were all
rejected.25
Despite these initial rejections, respondents each
received calls on the morning of November 6, 2006 from
Saudia’s office secretary informing them that their
maternity leaves had been approved. Saudia, however, was
quick to renege on its approval. On the evening of
November 6, 2006, respondents again received calls
informing them that it had received notification from
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia that their maternity leaves had been
disapproved.26
Faced with the dilemma of resigning or totally losing
their benefits, respondents executed handwritten
resignation letters. In Montassah’s and Rouen Ruth’s
cases, their resignations were executed on Saudia’s blank
letterheads that Saudia had provided. These letterheads
already had the word
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 593-670.

20 Id., at p. 608.
21 Id., at p. 600.
22 Id., at p. 607.
23 Id., at p. 618.
24 Id., at p. 626.
25 Id., at pp. 601, 608-609, 619, and 628.
26 Id., at pp. 601-602, 609-610, 621, and 630.
152

“RESIGNATION” typed on the subject portions of their

headings when these were handed to respondents.27
On November 8, 2007, respondents filed a Complaint
against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and for
underpayment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for
holiday, rest day, premium, service incentive leave pay,
13th month pay, separation pay, night shift differentials,

medical expense reimbursements, retirement benefits,
illegal deduction, lay-over expense and allowances, moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.28 The case
was initially assigned to Labor Arbiter Hermino V. Suelo
and docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-12342-07.
Saudia assailed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.29 It
claimed that all the determining points of contact referred
to foreign law and insisted that the Complaint ought to be
dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens.30 It
added that respondents had no cause of action as they
resigned voluntarily.31
On December 12, 2008, Executive Labor Arbiter Fatima
JambaroFranco rendered the Decision32 dismissing
respondents’ Complaint. The dispositive portion of this
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of
jurisdiction/merit.33
_______________
27 Id., at p. 610. See also pp. 715 and 750, Annexes “FF” and “EEE” of
Respondents’ Comment.
28 Id., at pp. 16, 372-373.
29 Id., at pp. 297-307.
30 Id., at pp. 307-312.
31 Id., at pp. 184-201.
32 Id., at pp. 372-383.
33 Id., at p. 383.
153
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 153

On respondents’ appeal, the National Labor Relations

Commission’s Sixth Division reversed the ruling of
Executive Labor Arbiter JambaroFranco. It explained that
“[c]onsidering that complainants-appellants are OFWs, the
Labor Arbiters and the NLRC has [sic] jurisdiction to hear
and decide their complaint for illegal termination.”34 On
the matter of forum non conveniens, it noted that there
were no special circumstances that warranted its
abstention from exercising jurisdiction.35 On the issue of
whether respondents were validly dismissed, it held that
there was nothing on record to support Saudia’s claim that

respondents resigned voluntarily.
The dispositive portion of the November 19, 2009
National Labor Relations Commission Decision36 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered finding the appeal impressed with merit. The
respondentsappellees are hereby directed to pay complainants-
appellants the aggregate amount of SR614,001.24 corresponding
to their backwages and separation pay plus ten (10%) percent
thereof as attorney’s fees. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated
December 12, 2008 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE.
Attached is the computation prepared by this Commission and
made an integral part of this Decision.37

In the Resolution dated February 11, 2010,38 the
National Labor Relations Commission denied petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration.
In the June 16, 2011 Decision,39 the Court of Appeals
denied petitioners’ Rule 65 Petition and modified the
Decision of
_______________
34 Id., at p. 163.
35 Id., at p. 164.
36 Id., at pp. 159-167.
37 Id., at p. 166.
38 Id., at pp. 170-172.
39 Id., at pp. 61-75.
154

the National Labor Relations Commission with respect

to the award of separation pay and backwages.
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The

Decision dated November 19, 2009 issued by public respondent,
Sixth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission-
National Capital Region is MODIFIED only insofar as the
computation of the award of separation pay and backwages. For
greater clarity, petitioners are ordered to pay private respondents
separation pay which shall be computed from private respondents’

first day of employment up to the finality of this decision, at the
rate of one month per year of service and backwages which shall
be computed from the date the private respondents were illegally
terminated until finality of this decision. Consequently, the ten
percent (10%) attorney’s fees shall be based on the total amount of
the award. The assailed Decision is affirmed in all other respects.
The labor arbiter is hereby DIRECTED to make a
recomputation based on the foregoing.40

In the Resolution dated September 13, 2011,41 denied
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, this Appeal was filed.
The issues for resolution are the following:
First, whether the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor
Relations Commission may exercise jurisdiction over Saudi
Arabian Airlines and apply Philippine law in adjudicating
the present dispute;
Second, whether respondents voluntarily resigned or
were illegally terminated; and
_______________
40 Id., at p. 74.
41 Id., at pp. 106-108.
155
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 155

Lastly, whether Brenda J. Betia may be held personally

liable along with Saudi Arabian Airlines.

I

Summons were validly served on Saudia and jurisdiction
over it validly acquired.
There is no doubt that the pleadings and summons were
served on Saudia through its counsel.42 Saudia, however,
claims that the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor
Relations Commission had no jurisdiction over it because
summons were never served on it but on “Saudia Manila.”43
Referring to itself as “Saudia Jeddah,” it claims that
“Saudia Jeddah” and not “Saudia Manila” was the
employer of respondents because:
First, “Saudia Manila” was never a party to the Cabin

Attendant contracts entered into by respondents;
Second, it was “Saudia Jeddah” that provided the funds
to pay for respondents’ salaries and benefits; and
Lastly, it was with “Saudia Jeddah” that respondents
filed their resignations.44
Saudia posits that respondents’ Complaint was brought
against the wrong party because “Saudia Manila,” upon
which summons was served, was never the employer of
respondents.45
Saudia is vainly splitting hairs in its effort to absolve
itself of liability. Other than its bare allegation, there is no
basis for concluding that “Saudia Jeddah” is distinct from
“Saudia Manila.”
_______________
42 Id., at p. 9.
43 Id., at p. 21.
44 Id., at p. 22.
45 Id., at pp. 21-23.
156

What is clear is Saudia’s statement in its own Petition

that what it has is a “Philippine Office . . . located at 4/F
Metro House Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati
City.”46 Even in the position paper that Saudia submitted
to the Labor Arbiter,47 what Saudia now refers to as
“Saudia Jeddah” was then only referred to as “Saudia Head
Office at Jeddah, KSA,”48 while what Saudia now refers to
as “Saudia Manila” was then only referred to as “Saudia’s
office in Manila.”49
By its own admission, Saudia, while a foreign
corporation, has a Philippine office.
Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 7042, otherwise known
as the Foreign Investments Act of 1991, provides the
following:
The phrase “doing business” shall include . . . opening

offices, whether called “liaison” offices or branches; . . . and
any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial
dealings or arrangements and contemplate to that extent the
performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the
functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of
commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business

organization. (Emphasis supplied)

A plain application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign
Investments Act leads to no other conclusion than that
Saudia is a foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines. As such, Saudia may be sued in the
Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine
tribunals.
Moreover, since there is no real distinction between
“Saudia Jeddah” and “Saudia Manila” — the latter being
_______________
46 Id., at p. 9.
47 Id., at pp. 173-203. Saudia’s position paper, attached as Annex “C”
in the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, is attached to
the Petition for Review on Certiorari before this court as Annex “D.”
48 Id., at p. 176.
49 Id., at pp. 177-181.
157
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 157

nothing more than Saudia’s local office — service of

summons to Saudia’s office in Manila sufficed to vest
jurisdiction over Saudia’s person in Philippine tribunals.

II

Saudia asserts that Philippine courts and/or tribunals
are not in a position to make an intelligent decision as to
the law and the facts. This is because respondents’ Cabin
Attendant contracts require the application of the laws of
Saudi Arabia, rather than those of the Philippines.50 It
claims that the difficulty of ascertaining foreign law calls
into operation the principle of forum non conveniens,
thereby rendering improper the exercise of jurisdiction by
Philippine tribunals.51
A choice of law governing the validity of contracts or the
interpretation of its provisions does not necessarily imply
forum non convenzens. Choice of law and forum non
conveniens are entirely different matters.
Choice of law provisions are an offshoot of the
fundamental principle of autonomy of contracts. Article
1306 of the Civil Code firmly ensconces this:
Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such

stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy.

In contrast, forum non conveniens is a device akin to the
rule against forum shopping. It is designed to frustrate
illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants
that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation
(or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of
either party.
Contractual choice of law provisions factor into
transnational litigation and dispute resolution in one of or
in a com-
_______________
50 Id., at p. 23.
51 Id.
158

bination of four ways: (1) procedures for settling

disputes, e.g., arbitration; (2) forum, i.e., venue; (3)
governing law; and (4) basis for interpretation. Forum non
conveniens relates to, but is not subsumed by, the second of
these.
Likewise, contractual choice of law is not determinative
of jurisdiction. Stipulating on the laws of a given
jurisdiction as the governing law of a contract does not
preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by tribunals elsewhere.
The reverse is equally true: The assumption of jurisdiction
by tribunals does not ipso facto mean that it cannot apply
and rule on the basis of the parties’ stipulation. In
Hasegawa v. Kitamura:52
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct

concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a
defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further
question whether the application of a substantive law which will
determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The power
to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state
constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction
and the choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the “minimum
contacts” for one do not always provide the necessary “significant
contacts” for the other. The question of whether the law of a state
can be applied to a transaction is different from the question of
whether the courts of that state have jurisdiction to enter a
judgment.53

As various dealings, commercial or otherwise, are
facilitated by the progressive ease of communication and
travel,
_______________
52 563 Phil. 572; 538 SCRA 261 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, Third
Division].
53 Id., at p. 585; p. 273, citing Coquia and Aguiling-Pangalangan,
Conflict of Laws, p. 64 (1995 ed.); Scoles, Hay, Borchers, Symeonides,
Conflict of Laws, p. 162 (3rd ed., 2000); and Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S.
186, 215; 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2585 (1977), citing Justice Black’s Dissenting
Opinion in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 258; 78 S. Ct. 1228, 1242
(1958).
159
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 159

persons from various jurisdictions find themselves

transacting with each other. Contracts involving foreign
elements are, however, nothing new. Conflict of laws
situations precipitated by disputes and litigation anchored
on these contracts are not totally novel.
Transnational transactions entail differing laws on the
requirements for the validity of the formalities and
substantive provisions of contracts and their
interpretation. These transactions inevitably lend
themselves to the possibility of various fora for litigation
and dispute resolution. As observed by an eminent expert
on transnational law:
The more jurisdictions having an interest in, or merely even a

point of contact with, a transaction or relationship, the greater
the number of potential fora for the resolution of disputes arising
out of or related to that transaction or relationship. In a world of
increased mobility, where business and personal transactions
transcend national boundaries, the jurisdiction of a number of
different fora may easily be invoked in a single or a set of related

disputes.54

Philippine law is definite as to what governs the formal
or extrinsic validity of contracts. The first paragraph of
Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that “[t]he forms and
solemnities of contracts . . . shall be governed by the laws of
the country in which they are executed”55 (i.e., lex loci
celebrationis).
In contrast, there is no statutorily established mode of
settling conflict of laws situations on matters pertaining to
substantive content of contracts. It has been noted that
three (3) modes have emerged: (1) lex loci contractus or the
law of the place of the making; (2) lex loci solutionis or the
law of the
_______________
54 Bermann, George A., Transnational Litigation in a Nutshell, p. 86

(2003).
55 Civil Code, Art. 17.
160

place of performance; and (3) lex loci intentionis or the

law intended by the parties.56
Given Saudia’s assertions, of particular relevance to
resolving the present dispute is lex loci intentionis.
An author observed that Spanish jurists and
commentators “favor lex loci intentionis.”57 These jurists
and commentators proceed from the Civil Code of Spain,
which, like our Civil Code, is silent on what governs the
intrinsic validity of contracts, and the same civil law
traditions from which we draw ours.
In this jurisdiction, this court, in Philippine Export and
Foreign Loan Guarantee v. V.P. Eusebio Construction,
Inc.,58 manifested preference for “allow[ing] the parties to
select the law applicable to their contract”:
No conflicts rule on essential validity of contracts is expressly

provided for in our laws. The rule followed by most legal systems,
however, is that the intrinsic validity of a contract must be
governed by the lex contractus or “proper law of the contract.”
This is the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (the lex loci
voluntatis) or the law intended by them either expressly or

implicitly (the lex loci intentionis). The law selected may be
implied from such factors as substantial connection with the
transaction, or the nationality or domicile of the parties.
Philippine courts would do well to adopt the first and most basic
rule in most legal systems, namely, to allow the parties to select
the law applicable to their contract, subject to the limitation that it
is not against the law, morals, or public policy of the forum and
that the chosen
_______________
56 Coquia, Jorge R. and Aguiling-Pangalangan, Elizabeth, Conflict of

Laws: Cases, Materials and Comments, p. 331 (2000).
57 Salonga, Jovito R., Private International Law, p. 355 (1995 ed.),
citing Trias de Bes, Conception de Droit International Prive, Rescueil
1930:657; Repert. 257 No. 124.
58 478 Phil. 269; 434 SCRA 202 (2004) [Per CJ. Davide, Jr., First
Division].
161
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 161

law must bear a substantive relationship to the transaction.59

(Emphasis in the original)

Saudia asserts that stipulations set in the Cabin
Attendant contracts require the application of the laws of
Saudi Arabia. It insists that the need to comply with these
stipulations calls into operation the doctrine of forum non
conveniens and, in turn, makes it necessary for Philippine
tribunals to refrain from exercising jurisdiction.
As mentioned, contractual choice of laws factors into
transnational litigation in any or a combination of four (4)
ways. Moreover, forum non conveniens relates to one of
these: choosing between multiple possible fora.
Nevertheless, the possibility of parallel litigation in
multiple fora — along with the host of difficulties it poses
— is not unique to transnational litigation. It is a difficulty
that similarly arises in disputes well within the bounds of a
singe jurisdiction.
When parallel litigation arises strictly within the
context of a single jurisdiction, such rules as those on
forum shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata come into

operation. Thus, in the Philippines, the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure provide for willful and deliberate forum
shopping as a ground not only for summary dismissal with
prejudice but also for citing parties and counsels in direct
contempt, as well as for the imposition of administrative
sanctions.60 Likewise, the same rules ex-
_______________
59 Id., at pp. 288-289; pp. 214-215, citing Paras, Edgardo L.,

Philippine Conflict of Laws, p. 414 (6th ed., 1984); and Salonga, Jovito R.,
Private International Law, p. 356 (1995 ed.).
60 1997 Rules of Civ. Proc., Rule 7, Sec. 5:
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping.—The plaintiff or
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith : (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
162

pressly provide that a party may seek the dismissal of a

Complaint or another pleading asserting a claim on the
ground “[t]hat there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause,” i.e, litis pendentia, or
“[t]hat the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment,”61
i.e., res judicata.
Forum non conveniens, like the rules of forum shopping,
litis pendentia, and res judicata, is a means of addressing
the problem of parallel litigation. While the rules of forum
shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata are designed to
address the problem of parallel litigation within a single
jurisdiction,
_______________
agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim
is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or
is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable

by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall
be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or noncompliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
61 1997 Rules of Civ. Proc., Rule 16, Sec. 1:
Section 1. Grounds.—Within the time for but before filing the answer
to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be
made on any of the following grounds:
. . . .
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for
the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the
statute of limitations[.]
163
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 163

forum non conveniens is a means devised to address

parallel litigation arising in multiple jurisdictions.
Forum non conveniens literally translates to “the forum
is inconvenient.”62 It is a concept in private international
law and was devised to combat the “less than honorable”
reasons and excuses that litigants use to secure procedural
advantages, annoy and harass defendants, avoid
overcrowded dockets, and select a “friendlier” venue.63
Thus, the doctrine of forum non conveniens addresses the
same rationale that the rule against forum shopping does,
albeit on a multijurisdictional scale.
Forum non conveniens, like res judicata,64 is a concept
originating in common law.65 However, unlike the rule on
res judi-
_______________
62 Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. v. Todaro, 551 Phil. 589, 599; 524
SCRA 153, 164 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division], citing
Bank of America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals, 448 Phil. 181; 400 SCRA
156 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
63 First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil.
280, 303; 252 SCRA 259, 281 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
64 See Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Balanced Food v.

Pinakamasarap Corporation, 464 Phil. 998, 1000-1001; 420 SCRA 84, 85
(2004) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division], citing Arenas v. Court
of Appeals, 399 Phil. 372; 345 SCRA 617 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, First
Division]:
“The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well
regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds
embodied in various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public policy
and necessity which makes it to the interest of the State that there should
be an end to litigation, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litumi; and (2) the
hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same
cause, memo debet bis vexari et eadem causa.”
65 Bermann, George A., supra note 54 at p. 87.
“Most civil law jurisdictions are quite unfamiliar with, and find odd,
the notion of dismissals or stays for forum non conveniens; they tend to
address problems of parallel litigation, if at all, through other

164

cata, as well as those on litis pendentia and forum

shopping, forum non conveniens finds no textual anchor,
whether in statute or in procedural rules, in our civil law
system. Nevertheless, jurisprudence has applied forum non
conveniens as basis for a court to decline its exercise of
jurisdiction.66
Forum non conveniens is soundly applied not only to
address parallel litigation and undermine a litigant’s
capacity to vex and secure undue advantages by engaging
in forum shopping on an international scale. It is also
grounded on principles of comity and judicial efficiency.
Consistent with the principle of comity, a tribunal’s
desistance in exercising jurisdiction on account of forum
non conveniens is a deferential gesture to the tribunals of
another sovereign. It is a measure that prevents the
former’s having to interfere in affairs which are better and
more competently addressed by the latter. Further, forum
non conveniens entails a recognition not only that tribunals
elsewhere are better suited to rule on and resolve a
controversy, but also, that these tribunals are better
positioned to enforce judgments and, ultimately, to dispense
justice. Forum non conveniens prevents the embarrassment
of an awkward situation where a tribunal is rendered
incompetent in the face of the greater capability — both
analytical and practical of a tribunal in another

jurisdiction.
The wisdom of avoiding conflicting and unenforceable
judgments is as much a matter of efficiency and economy
as it is a matter of international courtesy. A court would
effectively be neutering itself if it insists on adjudicating a
controversy when it knows full well that it is in no position
to enforce its
_______________
instruments . . . . But, in the US, as in numerous other common law

jurisdictions, the discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens is well
established and frequently applied.”
66 By way of example, see The Manila Hotel Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 397 Phil. 1; 343 SCRA 1 (2000) [Per J.
Pardo, First Division].
165
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 165

judgment. Doing so is not only an exercise in futility; it

is an act of frivolity. It clogs the dockets of a tribunal and
leaves it to waste its efforts on affairs, which, given
transnational exigencies, will be reduced to mere academic,
if not trivial, exercises.
Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
“a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on
its jurisdiction where it is “not the most ‘convenient’ or
available forum and the parties are not precluded from
seeking remedies elsewhere.”67 In Puyat v. Zabarte,68 this
court recognized the following situations as among those
that may warrant a court’s desistance from exercising
jurisdiction:
1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided
elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired
in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their
residence there;
2) The belief that the nonresident plaintiff sought the forum[,]
a practice known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure
procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant;
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to
nonresidents or aliens when the docket may already be
overcrowded;
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for

effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and
5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.69

In Bank of America NT & SA, Bank of America
International, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,70 this court
underscored that a
_______________
67 Supra note 63.

68 405 Phil. 413; 352 SCRA 738 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].
69 Id., at p. 432; p. 751, citing Salonga, Jovito R., Private International
Law, p. 47 (1979 ed.).
70 Supra note 62.
166

Philippine court may properly assume jurisdiction over a

case if it chooses to do so to the extent: “(1) that the
Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a
position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and
the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely
to have power to enforce its decision.”71
The use of the word “may” (i.e., “may refuse impositions
on its jurisdiction”)72 in the decisions shows that the matter
of jurisdiction rests on the sound discretion of a court.
Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor
the averment of foreign elements operates to automatically
divest a court of jurisdiction. Rather, a court should
renounce jurisdiction only “after ‘vital facts are established,
to determine whether special circumstances’ require the
court’s desistance.”73 As the propriety of applying forum
non conveniens is contingent on a factual determination, it
is, therefore, a matter of defense.74
The second sentence of Rule 9, Section 1 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure is exclusive in its recital of the
grounds for dismissal that are exempt from the omnibus
motion rule: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) litis pendentia;
_______________
71 Id., at p. 196; p. 169, citing Communication Materials and Design,

Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 487; 260 SCRA 673 (1996) [Per J.
Torres, Jr., Second Division].
72 Supra note 63.
73 Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 340 Phil. 232,
242; 274 SCRA 102, 113 (1997) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], citing
K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho v. Court of Appeals, 266 Phil. 156,
165; 188 SCRA 145, 153 (1990) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division]; Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Sherman, 257 Phil. 340; 176 SCRA 331
(1989) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].
74 Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld, 545 Phil.
116, 136; 516 SCRA 209, 230 (2007) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Third Division],
citing Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, id.
167
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 167

(3) res judicata; and (4) prescription. Moreover,

dismissal on account of forum non conveniens is a
fundamentally discretionary matter. It is, therefore, not a
matter for a defendant to foist upon the court at his or her
own convenience; rather, it must be pleaded at the earliest
possible opportunity.
On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we
state the rule, thus: Forum non conveniens must not only be
clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be
pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity.
Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.
This court notes that in Hasegawa,75 this court stated
that forum non conveniens is not a ground for a motion to
dismiss.76 The factual ambience of this case however does
not squarely raise the viability of this doctrine. Until the
opportunity comes to review the use of motions to dismiss
for parallel litigation, Hasegawa remains existing doctrine.
Consistent with forum non conveniens as fundamentally
a factual matter, it is imperative that it proceed from a
factually established basis. It would be improper to dismiss
an action pursuant to forum non conveniens based merely
on a perceived, likely, or hypothetical multiplicity of fora.
Thus, a defendant must also plead and show that a prior
suit has, in fact, been brought in another jurisdiction.
The existence of a prior suit makes real the vexation
engendered by duplicitous litigation, the embarrassment of
intruding into the affairs of another sovereign, and the
squandering of judicial efforts in resolving a dispute
already lodged and better resolved elsewhere. As has been

noted:
A case will not be stayed or dismissed on [forum] non

conveniens grounds unless the plaintiff is shown to have an
available alternative forum elsewhere. On this, the moving party
bears the burden of proof.
_______________
75 Hasegawa v. Kitamura, supra note 52.

76 Id., at p. 589; p. 277.
168

A number of factors affect the assessment of an alternative

forum’s adequacy. The statute of limitations abroad may have
run, of the foreign court may lack either subject matter or
personal jurisdiction over the defendant. . . . Occasionally, doubts
will be raised as to the integrity or impartiality of the foreign
court (based, for example, on suspicions of corruption or bias in
favor of local nationals), as to the fairness of its judicial
procedures, or as to is operational efficiency (due, for example, to
lack of resources, congestion and delay, or interfering
circumstances such as a civil unrest). In one noted case, [it was
found] that delays of ‘up to a quarter of a century’ rendered the
foreign forum . . . inadequate for these purposes.77
We deem it more appropriate and in the greater interest

of prudence that a defendant not only allege supposed
dangerous tendencies in litigating in this jurisdiction; the
defendant must also show that such danger is real and
present in that litigation or dispute resolution has
commenced in another jurisdiction and that a foreign
tribunal has chosen to exercise jurisdiction.

III

Forum non conveniens finds no application and does not
operate to divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to
require the application of foreign law.
Saudia invokes forum non conveniens to supposedly
effectuate the stipulations of the Cabin Attendant contracts
that require the application of the laws of Saudi Arabia.
Forum non conveniens relates to forum, not to the choice

of governing law. That forum non conveniens may
ultimately result in the application of foreign law is merely
an incident of its application. In this strict sense, forum
non conveniens is
_______________
77 Bermann, George A., supra note 54 at pp. 93-94.
169
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 169

not applicable. It is not the primarily pivotal

consideration in this case.
In any case, even a further consideration of the
applicability of forum non conveniens on the incidental
matter of the law governing respondents’ relation with
Saudia leads to the conclusion that it is improper for
Philippine tribunals to divest themselves of jurisdiction.
Any evaluation of the propriety of contracting parties’
choice of a forum and its incidents must grapple with two
(2) considerations: first, the availability and adequacy of
recourse to a foreign tribunal; and second, the question of
where, as between the forum court and a foreign court, the
balance of interests inhering in a dispute weighs more
heavily.
The first is a pragmatic matter. It relates to the viability
of ceding jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal and can be
resolved by juxtaposing the competencies and practical
circumstances of the tribunals in alternative fora.
Exigencies, like the statute of limitations, capacity to
enforce orders and judgments, access to records,
requirements for the acquisition of jurisdiction, and even
questions relating to the integrity of foreign courts, may
render undesirable or even totally unfeasible recourse to a
foreign court. As mentioned, we consider it in the greater
interest of prudence that a defendant show, in pleading
forum non conveniens, that litigation has commenced in
another jurisdiction and that a foreign tribunal has, in fact,
chosen to exercise jurisdiction.
Two (2) factors weigh into a court’s appraisal of the
balance of interests inhering in a dispute: first, the
vinculum which the parties and their relation have to a
given jurisdiction; and second, the public interest that must
animate a tribunal, in its capacity as an agent of the
sovereign, in choosing to assume or decline jurisdiction.

The first is more concerned with the parties, their personal
circumstances, and private interests; the second concerns
itself with the state and the greater social order.
170

In considering the vinculum, a court must look into the

preponderance of linkages which the parties and their
transaction may have to either jurisdiction. In this respect,
factors, such as the parties’ respective nationalities and
places of negotiation, execution, performance, engagement
or deployment, come into play.
In considering public interest, a court proceeds with a
consciousness that it is an organ of the state. It must, thus,
determine if he interests of the sovereign (which acts
through it) are outweighed by those of the alternative
jurisdiction. In this respect, the court delves into a
consideration of public policy. Should it find that public
interest weighs more heavily in favor of its assumption of
jurisdiction, it should proceed in adjudicating the dispute,
any doubt or contrary view arising from the preponderance
of linkages notwithstanding.
Our law on contracts recognizes the validity of
contractual choice of law provisions. Where such provisions
exist, Philippine tribunals, acting as the forum court,
generally defer to the parties’ articulated choice.
This is consistent with the fundamental principle of
autonomy of contracts. Article 1306 of the Civil Code
expressly provides that “[t]he contracting parties may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions
as they may deem convenient.”78 Nevertheless, while a
Philippine tribunal (acting as the forum court) is called
upon to respect the parties’ choice of governing law, such
respect must not be so permissive as to lose sight of
considerations of law, morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy that underlie the contract central to the
controversy.
_______________
78 Civil Code, Art. 1306.
171
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 171

Specifically with respect to public policy, in Pakistan

International Airlines Corporation v. Ople,79 this court
explained that:
counter-balancing the principle of autonomy of contracting

parties is the equally general rule that provisions of applicable
law, especially provisions relating to matters affected with public
policy, are deemed written into the contract. Put a little
differently, the governing principle is that parties may not
contract away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory
provisions dealing with matters heavily impressed with public
interest.80 (Emphasis supplied)

Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides
that “[t]he State . . . shall ensure the fundamental equality
before the law of women and men.” Contrasted with Article
II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution’s statement that “[n]o
person shall . . . be denied the equal protection of the laws,”
Article II, Section 14 exhorts the State to “ensure.” This
does not only mean that the Philippines shall not
countenance nor lend legal recognition and approbation to
measures that discriminate on the basis of one’s being male
or female. It imposes an obligation to actively engage in
securing the fundamental equality of men and women.
The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), signed and
ratified by the Philippines on July 15, 1980, and on August
5, 1981, respectively,81 is part of the law of the land. In
view of the widespread signing and ratification of, as well
as adherence (in practice) to it by states, it may even be
said that many provi-
_______________
79 268 Phil. 92; 190 SCRA 90 (1990) [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division].
80 Id., at p. 101; p. 99.
81 Also signed and ratified by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. See United
Nations Treaty Collection <https://treatie s.un.org/Pages/View
Details.aspx?src= TREATY &mtdsg_no=IV- 8&chapter=4&lang=en>.
172

sions of the CEDAW may have become customary

international law. The CEDAW gives effect to the
Constitution’s policy statement in Article II, Section 14.
Article I of the CEDAW defines “discrimination against
women” as:
any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of

sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their
marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.82

The constitutional exhortation to ensure fundamental
equality, as illumined by its enabling law, the CEDAW,
must inform and animate all the actions of all personalities
acting on behalf of the State. It is, therefore, the bounden
duty of this court, in rendering judgment on the disputes
brought before it, to ensure that no discrimination is
heaped upon women on the mere basis of their being
women. This is a point so basic and central that all our
discussions and pronouncements — regardless of whatever
averments there may be of foreign law — must proceed
from this premise.
So informed and animated, we emphasize the glaringly
discriminatory nature of Saudia’s policy. As argued by
respondents, Saudia’s policy entails the termination of
employment of flight attendants who become pregnant. At
the risk of stating the obvious, pregnancy is an occurrence
that pertains specifically to women. Saudia’s policy excludes
from and restricts employment on the basis of no other
consideration but sex.
We do not lose sight of the reality that pregnancy does
present physical limitations that may render difficult the
per-
_______________
82 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination

Against Women, July 15, 1980 (1981), I-I U.N.T.S. 16 <https ://treaties.
un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201249/ v1249.pdf>.
173
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 173

formance of functions associated with being a flight

attendant. Nevertheless, it would be the height of iniquity
to view pregnancy as a disability so permanent and
immutable that it must entail the termination of one’s
employment. It is clear to us that any individual,
regardless of gender, may be subject to exigencies that
limit the performance of functions. However, we fail to
appreciate how pregnancy could be such an impairing
occurrence that it leaves no other recourse but the complete
termination of the means through which a woman earns a
living.
Apart from the constitutional policy on the fundamental
equality before the law of men and women, it is settled that
contracts relating to labor and employment are impressed
with public interest. Article 1700 of the Civil Code provides
that “[t]he relation between capital and labor are not
merely contractual. They are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common
good.”
Consistent with this, this court’s pronouncements in
Pakistan International Airlines Corporation83 are clear and
unmistakable:
Petitioner PIA cannot take refuge in paragraph 10 of its

employment agreement which specifies, firstly, the law of
Pakistan as the applicable law of the agreement. and, secondly,
lays the venue for settlement of any dispute arising out of or in
connection with the agreement “only [in] courts of Karachi,
Pakistan.” The first clause of paragraph 10 cannot be invoked to
prevent the application of Philippine labor laws and regulations to
the subject matter of this case, i.e., the employer-employee
relationship between petitioner PIA and private respondents. We
have already pointed out that the relationship is much affected
with public interest and that the otherwise applicable Philippine
laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties
agreeing upon some other law to
_______________
83 Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Ople, supra note 79.
174

govern their relationship. . . . Under these circumstances,

paragraph 10 of the employment agreement cannot be given effect
so as to oust Philippine agencies and courts of the jurisdiction
vested upon them by Philippine law.84 (Emphasis supplied)

As the present dispute relates to (what the respondents
allege to be) the illegal termination of respondents’
employment, this case is immutably a matter of public
interest and public policy. Consistent with clear
pronouncements in law and jurisprudence, Philippine laws
properly find application in and govern this case. Moreover,
as this premise for Saudia’s insistence on the application
forum non conveniens has been shattered, it follows that
Philippine tribunals may properly assume jurisdiction over
the present controversy.
Philippine jurisprudence provides ample illustrations of
when a court’s renunciation of jurisdiction on account of
forum non conveniens is proper or improper.
In Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals,85
this court noted that the trial court failed to consider that
one of the plaintiffs was a domestic corporation, that one of
the defendants was a Filipino, and that it was the
extinguishment of the latter’s debt that was the object of
the transaction subject of the litigation. Thus, this court
held, among others, that the trial court’s refusal to assume
jurisdiction was not justified by forum non conveniens and
remanded the case to the trial court.
In Raytheon International, Inc. v. Rouzie, Jr.,86 this
court sustained the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction
considering that the trial court could properly enforce
judgment on the
_______________
84 Id., at pp. 104-105; p. 103.

85 Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 73.
86 570 Phil. 151; 546 SCRA 555 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
175
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 175

petitioner which was a foreign corporation licensed to do

business in the Philippines.
In Pioneer International, Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr.,87 this court
found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assumption of
jurisdiction over a case in which, as noted by the trial

court, “it is more convenient to hear and decide the case in
the Philippines because Todaro [the plaintiff] resides in the
Philippines and the contract allegedly breached involve[d]
employment in the Philippines.”88
In Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. v.
Schonfeld,89 this court held that the fact that the
complainant in an illegal dismissal case was a Canadian
citizen and a repatriate did not warrant the application of
forum non conveniens considering that: (1) the Labor Code
does not include forum non conveniens as a ground for the
dismissal of a complaint for illegal dismissal; (2) the
propriety of dismissing a case based on forum non
conveniens requires a factual determination; and (3) the
requisites for assumption of jurisdiction as laid out in Bank
of America NT&SA90 were all satisfied.
In contrast, this court ruled in The Manila Hotel Corp. v.
National Labor Relations Commission91 that the National
Labor Relations Commission was a seriously inconvenient
forum. In that case, private respondent Marcelo G. Santos
was working in the Sultanate of Oman when he received a
letter from Palace Hotel recruiting him for employment in
Beijing, China. Santos accepted the offer. Subsequently,
however, he was released from employment supposedly due
to
_______________
87 561 Phil. 688; 535 SCRA 184 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
88 87 Id., at p. 700; p. 593.
89 Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld,
supra note 74.
90 Bank of America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals, supra note 62.
91 The Manila Hotel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
supra note 66.
176

business reverses arising from political upheavals in

China (i.e., the Tiananmen Square incidents of 1989).
Santos later filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal
impleading Palace Hotel’s General Manager, Mr. Gerhard
Schmidt, the Manila Hotel International Company Ltd.
(which was responsible for training Palace Hotel’s
personnel and staff), and the Manila Hotel Corporation
(which owned 50% of Manila Hotel International Company

Ltd.’s capital stock).
In ruling against the National Labor Relations
Commission’s exercise of jurisdiction, this court noted that
the main aspects of the case transpired in two (2) foreign
jurisdictions, Oman and China, and that the case involved
purely foreign elements. Specifically, Santos was directly
hired by a foreign employer through correspondence sent to
Oman. Also, the proper defendants were neither Philippine
nationals nor engaged in business in the Philippines, while
the main witnesses were not residents of the Philippines.
Likewise, this court noted that the National Labor
Relations Commission was in no position to conduct the
following: first, determine the law governing the
employment contract, as it was entered into in foreign soil;
second, determine the facts, as Santos’ employment was
terminated in Beijing; and third, enforce its judgment,
since Santos’ employer, Palace Hotel, was incorporated
under the laws of China and was not even served with
summons.
Contrary to Manila Hotel, the case now before us does
not entail a preponderance of linkages that favor a foreign
jurisdiction.
Here, the circumstances of the parties and their relation
do not approximate the circumstances enumerated in
Puyat,92 which this court recognized as possibly justifying
the desistance of Philippine tribunals from exercising
jurisdiction.
_______________
92 Puyat v. Zabarte, supra note 68.
177
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 177

First, there is no basis for concluding that the case can

be more conveniently tried elsewhere. As established
earlier, Saudia is doing business in the Philippines. For
their part, all four (4) respondents are Filipino citizens
maintaining residence in the Philippines and, apart from
their previous employment with Saudia, have no other
connection to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It would even
be to respondents’ inconvenience if this case were to be
tried elsewhere.
Second, the records are bereft of any indication that

respondents filed their Complaint in an effort to engage in
forum shopping or to vex and inconvenience Saudia.
Third, there is no indication of “unwillingness to extend
local judicial facilities to nonresidents or aliens.”93 That
Saudia has managed to bring the present controversy all
the way to this court proves this.
Fourth, it cannot be said that the local judicial
machinery is inadequate for effectuating the right sought
to be maintained. Summons was properly served on Saudia
and jurisdiction over its person was validly acquired.
Lastly, there is not even room for considering foreign
law. Philippine law properly governs the present dispute.
As the question of applicable law has been settled, the
supposed difficulty of ascertaining foreign law (which
requires the application of forum non conveniens) provides
no insurmountable inconvenience or special circumstance
that will justify depriving Philippine tribunals of
jurisdiction.
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion,
that it is the laws of Saudi Arabia which should apply, it
does not follow that Philippine tribunals should refrain
from exercising jurisdiction. To recall our pronouncements
in Puyat,94 as well
_______________
93 Id., citing Salonga, Jovito R., Private International Law, p. 47 (1979

ed.).
94 Id.
178

as in Bank of America NT&SA,95 it is not so much the

mere applicability of foreign law which calls into operation
forum non conveniens. Rather, what justifies a court’s
desistance from exercising jurisdiction is “[t]he difficulty of
ascertaining foreign law”96 or the inability of a “Philippine
Court . . . to make an intelligent decision as to the law[.]”97
Consistent with lex loci intentionis, to the extent that it
is proper and practicable (i.e., “to make an intelligent
decision”),98 Philippine tribunals may apply the foreign law
selected by the parties. In fact, (albeit without meaning to
make a pronouncement on the accuracy and reliability of
respondents’ citation) in this case, respondents themselves
have made averments as to the laws of Saudi Arabia. In

their Comment, respondents write:
Under the Labor Laws of Saudi Arabia and the Philippines[,]

it is illegal and unlawful to terminate the employment of any
woman by virtue of pregnancy. The law in Saudi Arabia is even
more harsh and strict [sic] in that no employer can terminate the
employment of a female worker or give her a warning of the same
while on Maternity Leave, the specific provision of Saudi Labor
Laws on the matter is hereto quoted as follows:
“An employer may not terminate the employment of a female
worker or give her a warning of the same while on maternity
leave.” (Article 155, Labor Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Royal Decree No. M/51)99
_______________

96 Puyat v. Zabarte, supra note 68 [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division],
citing Salonga, Jovito R., Private International Law,
p. 47 (1979 ed.). (Underscoring supplied)
97 Bank of America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals, supra note 62 at p.
196; p. 169, citing Communication Materials and Design, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, supra note 71.
98 Id.
99 Rollo, p. 637.
179
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 179

All told, the considerations for assumption of jurisdiction

by Philippine tribunals as outlined in Bank of America
NT&SA100 have been satisfied. First, all the parties are
based in the Philippines and all the material incidents
transpired in this jurisdiction. Thus, the parties may
conveniently seek relief from Philippine tribunals. Second,
Philippine tribunals are in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts. Third, Philippine
tribunals are in a position to enforce their decisions. There
is no compelling basis for ceding jurisdiction to a foreign
tribunal. Quite the contrary, the immense public policy
considerations attendant to this case behoove Philippine
tribunals to not shy away from their duty to rule on the
case.

IV

Respondents were illegally terminated.
In Bilbao v. Saudi Arabian Airlines,101 this court defined
voluntary resignation as “the voluntary act of an employee
who is in a situation where one believes that personal
reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the
service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate
oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or
relinquishment of an office, with the intention of
relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of
relinquishment.”102 Thus, essential to the act of resignation
is voluntariness. It must be the result of an employee’s
exercise of his or her own will.
In the same case of Bilbao, this court advanced a means
for determining whether an employee resigned voluntarily:
_______________

101 G.R. No. 183915, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 540 [Per J.
Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
102 Id., at p. 549, citing BMG Records (Phils.), Inc. v. Aparecio, 559
Phil. 80; 532 SCRA 300 (2007) [Per J. Azcuna, First Division].
180

As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of

relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the
alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he
or she, in fact, intended, to sever his or her employment.103
(Emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, constructive dismissal has been
defined as “cessation of work because ‘continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a
diminution in pay’ and other benefits.”104
In Penaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing
Corporation,105 constructive dismissal has been described
as tantamount to “involuntarily [sic] resignation due to the
harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the
employer.”106 In the same case, it was noted that “[t]he
gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable
person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to
give up his employment under the prevailing

circumstances.”107
Applying the cited standards on resignation and
constructive dismissal, it is clear that respondents were
constructively dismissed. Hence, their termination was
illegal.
The termination of respondents’ employment happened
when they were pregnant and expecting to incur costs on
account of child delivery and infant rearing. As noted by
the Court of Appeals, pregnancy is a time when they need
em-
_______________
103 Id., at p. 549.

104 Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, G.R. No. 174208,
January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 110, 117 [Per J. Perez, Second Division],
citing Globe Telecom, Inc. v. Florendo-Flores, 438 Phil. 756, 766; 390
SCRA 201, 210 (2002) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
105 632 Phil. 221; 618 SCRA 208 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
106 Id., at p. 226; p. 214.
107 Id., citing Siemens Philippines, Inc. v. Domingo, 582 Phil. 86; 560
SCRA 86 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
181
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 181

ployment to sustain their families.108 Indeed, it goes

against normal and reasonable human behavior to abandon
one’s livelihood in a time of great financial need.
It is clear that respondents intended to remain employed
with Saudia. All they did was avail of their maternity
leaves. Evidently, the very nature of a maternity leave
means that a pregnant employee will not report for work
only temporarily and that she will resume the performance
of her duties as soon as the leave allowance expires.
It is also clear that respondents exerted all efforts to
remain employed with Saudia. Each of them repeatedly
filed appeal letters (as much as five [5] letters in the case of
Rebesencio)109 asking Saudia to reconsider the ultimatum
that they resign or be terminated along with the forfeiture
of their benefits. Some of them even went to Saudia’s office
to personally seek reconsideration.110
Respondents also adduced a copy of the “Unified
Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants.”111
This contract deemed void the employment of a flight

attendant who becomes pregnant and threatened
termination due to lack of medical fitness.112 The threat of
termination (and the forfeiture of benefits that it entailed)
is enough to compel a reasonable person in respondents’
position to give up his or her employment.
Saudia draws attention to how respondents’ resignation
letters were supposedly made in their own handwriting.
This minutia fails to surmount all the other indications
negating
_______________
108 Rollo, p. 72.

109 Id., at pp. 684-688, 714, 749, and 823-828. These letters are
attached as Annexes “F” to “J,” “EE,” “DDD,” “GGGG” to “JJJJ” of
Respondents’ Comment.
110 Id., at pp. 609 and 617.
111 Id., at pp. 736-740. The Unified Contract is attached as Annex “ZZ”
of Respondents’ Comment.
112 Id., at p. 739.
182

any voluntariness on respondents’ part. If at all, these

same resignation letters are proof of how any supposed
resignation did not arise from respondents’ own initiative.
As earlier pointed out, respondents’ resignations were
executed on Saudia’s blank letterheads that Saudia had
provided. These letterheads already had the word
“RESIGNATION” typed on the subject portion of their
respective headings when these were handed to
respondents.113
“In termination of cases, the burden of proving just or
valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the
employer.”114 In this case, Saudia makes much of how
respondents supposedly completed their exit interviews,
executed quitclaims, received their separation pay, and
took more than a year to file their Complaint.115 If at all,
however, these circumstances prove only the fact of their
occurrence, nothing more. The voluntariness of
respondents’ departure from Saudia is non sequitur.
Mere compliance with standard procedures or processes,
such as the completion of their exit interviews, neither
negates compulsion nor indicates voluntariness.
As with respondent’s resignation letters, their exit

interview forms even support their claim of illegal
dismissal and militates against Saudia’s arguments. These
exit interview forms, as reproduced by Saudia in its own
Petition, confirms the unfavorable conditions as regards
respondents’ maternity leaves. Ma. Jopette’s and Loraine’s
exit interview forms are particularly telling:
a. From Ma. Jopette’s exit interview form:
_______________
113 Id., at pp. 610, 715, and 750.

114 Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Catbonlon, 523 Phil. 338, 344; 489 SCRA
671, 676 (2006) [Per J. Quisumbing, Third Division], citing Sameer
Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 375 Phil. 535; 317 SCRA 120
(1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
115 Rollo, pp. 28, 32, and 35.
183
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 183

3. In what respects has the job met or failed to meet your

expectations?
THE SUDDEN TWIST OF DECISION REGARDING THE
MATERNITY LEAVE.116
b. From Loraine’s exit interview form:
1. What are your main reasons for leaving Saudia? What
company are you joining?
x x x x x x x x x
Others
CHANGING POLICIES REGARDING MATERNITY LEAVE
(PREGNANCY)117
As to respondents’ quitclaims, in Phil. Employ Services

and Resources, Inc. v. Paramio,118 this court noted that “[i]f
(a) there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from
an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (b) the terms of the
settlement are unconscionable, and on their face invalid,
such quitclaims must be struck down as invalid or
illegal.”119 Respondents executed their quitclaims after
having been unfairly given an ultimatum to resign or be
terminated (and forfeit their benefits).

V

Having been illegally and unjustly dismissed,
respondents are entitled to full backwages and benefits
from the time of their termination until the finality of this
Decision. They are likewise entitled to separation pay in
the amount of one (1)
_______________
116 Id., at p. 28.

117 Id., at p. 31.
118 471 Phil. 753; 427 SCRA 732 (2004) [Per J. Calleja, Sr., Second
Division].
119 Id., at p. 780; p. 755, citing Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 417 Phil. 428; 365 SCRA 124 (2001) [Per J. Kapunan, First
Division].
184

month’s salary for every year of service until the finality

of this Decision, with a fraction of a year of at least six (6)
months being counted as one (1) whole year.
Moreover, “[m]oral damages are awarded in termination
cases where the employee’s dismissal was attended by bad
faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act
oppressive to labor, or where it was done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.”120 In
this case, Saudia terminated respondents’ employment in a
manner that is patently discriminatory and running afoul
of the public interest that underlies employer-employee
relationships. As such, respondents are entitled to moral
damages.
To provide an “example or correction for the public
good”121 as against such discriminatory and callous
schemes, respondents are likewise entitled to exemplary
damages.
In a long line of cases, this court awarded exemplary
damages to illegally dismissed employees whose
“dismissal[s were] effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner.”122 This court has awarded exemplary
damages to employees who were terminated on such
frivolous, arbitrary, and unjust grounds as membership in
or involvement with labor
_______________
120 San Miguel Properties Philippines, Inc. v. Gucaban, G.R. No.

153982, July 18, 2011, 654 SCRA 18, 33 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division],
citing Mayan Hotel and Restaurant v. Adana, 497 Phil. 892, 922; 458
SCRA 609, 639 (2005) [Per J. Puno, Second Division]; Litonjua Group of
Companies v. Vigan, 412 Phil. 627, 643; 360 SCRA 194, 208 (2001) [Per J.
Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Divisionl; Equitable Banking Corp. v. NLRC, 339
Phil. 541, 565; 273 SCRA 352, 379 (1997) [Per J. Vitug, First Division];
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, 328 Phil. 814, 830; 259 SCRA 459, 473
(1996) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division]; and Maglutac v. NLRC, G.R.
Nos. 78345 and 78637, September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA 767 [Per J. Peralta,
Third Division].
121 Civil Code. Art. 2229.
122 Quadra v. Court of Appeals, 529 Phil. 218; 497 SCRA 221 (2006)
[Per J. Puno, Second Division].
185
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 185

unions,123 injuries sustained in the course of

employment,124 development of a medical condition due to
the employer’s own violation of the employment contract,125
and lodging of a Complaint against the employer.126
Exemplary damages were also awarded to employees who
were deemed illegally dismissed by an employer in an
attempt to evade compliance with statutorily established
employee benefits.127 Likewise, employees dismissed for
supposedly just causes, but in violation of due process
requirements, were awarded exemplary damages.128
These examples pale in comparison to the present
controversy. Stripped of all unnecessary complexities,
respondents were dismissed for no other reason than
simply that they were pregnant. This is as wanton,
oppressive, and tainted with bad faith as any reason for
termination of employment can be. This is no ordinary case
of illegal dismissal. This is a case of manifest gender
discrimination. It is an affront not only to our statutes and
policies on employees’ security of tenure, but more so, to
the Constitution’s dictum of fundamental equality between
men and women.129 The award of exemplary damages is,
therefore, warranted, not only to re-
_______________
123 Id.; Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. Employees Association

v. NLRC, 380 Phil. 45; 323 SCRA 86 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second
Division].
124 U-Bix Corporation v. Bandiola, 552 Phil. 633; 525 SCRA 566 (2007)
[Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
125 Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 359 Phil. 955; 299
SCRA 608 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
126 Estiva v. NLRC, G.R. No. 95145, August 5, 1993, 225 SCRA 169
[Per J. Bidin, Third Division].
127 Kay Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 502 Phil. 783; 464 SCRA
544 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
128 Montinola v. PAL, G.R. No. 198656, September 8, 2014, 734 SCRA
439 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
129 Const., Art. II, Sec. 14: The State recognizes the role of women in
nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law
of women and men.
186

mind employers of the need to adhere to the

requirements of procedural and substantive due process in
termination of employment, but more importantly, to
demonstrate that gender discrimination should in no case
be countenanced.
Having been compelled to litigate to seek reliefs for their
illegal and unjust dismissal, respondents are likewise
entitled to attorney’s fees in the amount of 10% of the total
monetary award.130

VI

Petitioner Brenda J. Betia may not be held liable.
A corporation has a personality separate and distinct
from those of the persons composing it. Thus, as a rule,
corporate directors and officers are not liable for the illegal
termination of a corporation’s employees. It is only when
they acted in bad faith or with malice that they become
solidarily liable with the corporation.131
In Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc. (EEMI) v. Sama-
hang Manggagawa ng Ever Electrical,132 this court clarified
that “[b]ad faith does not connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of
a known duty
_______________
130 Aliling v. Manuel, G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 186,
220 [Per J. Velasco, Third Division], citing Exodus International
Construction Corporation v. Biscocho, 659 Phil. 142; 644 SCRA 76 (2011)
[Per J. Del Castillo, First Division] and Lambert Pawnbrokers and
Jewelry Corporation, G.R. No. 170464, July 12, 2010, 624 SCRA 705, 721
[Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
131 Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc. (EEMI) v. Samahang
Manggagawa ng Ever Electrical, G.R. No. 194795, June 13, 2012, 672
SCRA 562, 572 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division], citing Malayang
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos, 409 Phil. 75,
83; 357 SCRA 77, 93-94 (2001) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division].
132 Id.
187
VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 187

through some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of

the nature of fraud.”133
Respondents have not produced proof to show that
Brenda J. Betia acted in bad faith or with malice as
regards their termination. Thus, she may not be held
solidarily liable with Saudia.
WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATIONS that first,
petitioner Brenda J. Betia is not solidarily liable with
petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines, and second, that
petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines is liable for moral and
exemplary damages. The June 16, 2011 Decision and the
September 13, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 113006 are hereby AFFIRMED in all
other respects. Accordingly, petitioner Saudi Arabian
Airlines is ordered to pay respondents:
(1) Full backwages and all other benefits computed from
the respective dates in which each of the respondents were
illegally terminated until the finality of this Decision;
(2) Separation pay computed from the respective dates
in which each of the respondents commenced employment
until the finality of this Decision at the rate of one (1)
month’s salary for every year of service, with a fraction of a
year of at least six (6) months being counted as one (1)
whole year;
(3) Moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 per
respondent;
(4) Exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00
per respondent; and
(5) Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.
_______________
133 Id.

188

Interest of 6% per annum shall likewise be imposed on

the total judgment award from the finality of this Decision
until full satisfaction thereof.
This case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter to make
a detailed computation of the amounts due to respondents
which petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines should pay
without delay.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,** Del Castillo and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution affirmed with modifications.
Notes.—A foreign corporation doing business in the

Philippines without a license may still sue before the
Philippine courts a Filipino or a Philippine entity that had
derived some benefit from their contractual arrangement
because the latter is considered to be estopped from
challenging the personality of a corporation after it had
acknowledged the said corporation by entering into a
contract with it. (Steelcase, Inc. vs. Design International
Selections, Inc., 670 SCRA 64 [2012])
As a general rule “the officer cannot be held personally
liable with the corporation, whether civilly or otherwise, for
the consequences of his acts, if acted for and in behalf of
the corporation, within the scope of his authority and in
good faith.” (Laborte vs. Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers’
Cooperative, 713 SCRA 536 [2014])
——o0o——
_______________
* * Designated acting member per S.O. No. 1910 dated January 12,
2015.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

G.R. No. 198587. January 14, 2015.*

Conflict of Laws; Corporations; Foreign Corporations Doing

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 141

The more jurisdictions having an interest in, or merely even a

our civil law system. Nevertheless, jurisprudence has applied

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, “a

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 143

International Law; Convention on the Elimination of all

employment, this case is immutably a matter of public interest

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

public policy. Consistent with clear pronouncements in law

are in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 145

compelling basis for ceding jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal.

year to file their Complaint. If at all, however, these

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Quitclaims; As to respondents’ quitclaims, in

to morals, good customs or public policy.” In this case, Saudia

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 147

employer-employee relationships. As such, respondents are

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1. Petitioner SAUDIA is a foreign corporation established and

1 Rollo, pp. 61-75.

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 149

seminars required by the Philippine Overseas

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Specifically, Ma. Jopette received a call on October 16,

(H) Due to the essential nature of the Air Hostess functions to

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 151

In their Comment on the present Petition,19 respondents

September 5, 2006.21 Montassah filed her maternity leave

19 Id., at pp. 593-670.

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“RESIGNATION” typed on the subject portions of their

13th month pay, separation pay, night shift differentials,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 153

On respondents’ appeal, the National Labor Relations

there was nothing on record to support Saudia’s claim that

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the National Labor Relations Commission with respect

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The

separation pay which shall be computed from private respondents’

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 155

Lastly, whether Brenda J. Betia may be held personally

First, “Saudia Manila” was never a party to the Cabin

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

What is clear is Saudia’s statement in its own Petition

The phrase “doing business” shall include . . . opening

commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 157

nothing more than Saudia’s local office — service of

1306 of the Civil Code firmly ensconces this:

Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

bination of four ways: (1) procedures for settling