Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    SAUDIA V REBESENCIO

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Princess Zia Salomon
    The respondents were recruited and hired as temporary flight attendants by Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) with approval from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). They later became permanent flight attendants and were terminated, which respondents claimed was due to pregnancy. Respondents filed a complaint against Saudia for illegal dismissal and underpayment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case based on forum non conveniens but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, explaining there were no special circumstances to abstain from jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision with modifications to back wages and separation pay. The issue is whether Philippine courts can make an intelligent decision on the law and facts. The

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SAUDIA V REBESENCIO

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Princess Zia Salomon
    65 views1 page
    The respondents were recruited and hired as temporary flight attendants by Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) with approval from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). They later became permanent flight attendants and were terminated, which respondents claimed was due to pregnancy. Respondents filed a complaint against Saudia for illegal dismissal and underpayment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case based on forum non conveniens but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, explaining there were no special circumstances to abstain from jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision with modifications to back wages and separation pay. The issue is whether Philippine courts can make an intelligent decision on the law and facts. The

    Original Description:

    law case digest SAUDIA v REBESENCIO

    Original Title

    SAUDIA v REBESENCIO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondents were recruited and hired as temporary flight attendants by Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) with approval from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). They later became permanent flight attendants and were terminated, which respondents claimed was due to pregnancy. Respondents filed a complaint against Saudia for illegal dismissal and underpayment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case based on forum non conveniens but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, explaining there were no special circumstances to abstain from jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision with modifications to back wages and separation pay. The issue is whether Philippine courts can make an intelligent decision on the law and facts. The

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views1 page

    SAUDIA V REBESENCIO

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Princess Zia Salomon
    The respondents were recruited and hired as temporary flight attendants by Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) with approval from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). They later became permanent flight attendants and were terminated, which respondents claimed was due to pregnancy. Respondents filed a complaint against Saudia for illegal dismissal and underpayment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case based on forum non conveniens but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, explaining there were no special circumstances to abstain from jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision with modifications to back wages and separation pay. The issue is whether Philippine courts can make an intelligent decision on the law and facts. The

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    B. G.R. No.

    198587 January 14, 2015


    SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA,
    Petitioners, v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-
    ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S.
    SCHNEIDER-CRUZ, Respondents.

    FACTS:
    Respondents (complainants before the Labor Arbiter) were recruited and
    hired by Saudia (SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES) as Temporary Flight Attendants
    with the accreditation and approval of the POEA. After undergoing seminars
    required by the POEA for deployment overseas and after working as Temporary
    Flight Attendants, respondents became Permanent Flight Attendants. They then
    entered into Cabin Attendant contracts with Saudia. Respondents continued their
    employment with Saudia until they were separated from service. Respondents
    contended that the termination of their employment was illegal. They alleged that
    the termination was made solely because they were pregnant. Respondents filed a
    Complaint against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and for
    underpayment.
    The Labor Arbiter dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens. The
    NLRC reversed  explaining there were no special circumstances that warranted its
    abstention from exercising jurisdiction.. The CA affirmed the decision of the
    NLRC with modification to the award of separation pay and backwages.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Philippine courts and/or tribunals are in a position to
    make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts.

    RATIO DECIDENDI:
    Yes. The Philippine court is the proper court of jurisdiction.
    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 place of performance; and (3) lex
    loci intentionis or the law intended by the parties.
    Consistent with forum non conveniens as fundamentally a factual matter, it
    is imperative that it proceed from & 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.
    It is deemed 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.

    You might also like