Page 1 of 5
PART 2D(6): Alien Employment Regulation
Almodiel v. NLRC
G.R. 100641 – June 14, 1993
J. Nocon
Topic: Alien Employment Regulation (Coverage)
Petitioner: Farle P. Almodiel
Defendants: National Labor Relations Commission, Raytheon Philippines, Inc.
Summary: Almodiel’s position as Cost Accounting Manager was abolished on the ground of redundancy
after the installation of the standard cost accounting system. The system was under the MIS/Finance
Department headed by Danny Ang Tan Chai, a resident alien. Almodiel is alleging that he should have
been the head of that department given that he has more work experience than Chai, and that the latter
did not have work permit as prescribed by LC40. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Raytheon
(respondent), saying that the abolition of Almodiel’s position is not shrouded with bad faith and malice.
Added to this, the SC ruled that LC40 is directed to non-resident aliens, which Chai is not.
FACTS:
 Almodiel is a certified public accountant who was hired in October 1987 as Cost Accounting
Manager (CAM) of Raytheon Philippines, Inc. through a reputable placement firm, John
Clements Consultants, Inc. As CAM, his major duties were: (1) plan, coordinate and carry out
year and physical inventory; (2) formulate and issue out hard copies of Standard Product costing
and other cost/pricing analysis if needed and required, and (3) set up the written Cost
Accounting System for the whole company.
 Around August 1988: the standard cost accounting system was installed and used at the
Raytheon plants and subsidiaries worldwide, including the Philippines. As a consequence, the
services of a CAM allegedly entailed only the submission of periodic reports that would use
computerized forms.
 January 1989: Almodiel was told of the aboloition of his position on the ground of redundancy,
and that this was already communicate with the DOLE. He pleaded to be transferred to another
department, but was told that it was already final.
 Thus, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioner claims that the functions of his
position were absorbed by the MIS/Finance Department under the management of Danny Ang
Tan Chai, a resident alien without any working permit from the DOLE as required by law.
Granting that his department has to be declared redundant, he is claiming that he should have
been the manager of the MIS/Finance Department given his Accounting Degree, CPA license,
and 21 years of work experience. This is in comparison with Chai who he alleged was only hired
as a Systems Analyst Programmer, and was just promoted as MIS Manager only in 1988.
 Labor Arbiter Ruling: Ruled in favor of Almodiel, stating that the dismissal on the ground of
redundancy is highly irregular and without legal and factual basis.
1 LC283: Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The employer
may also terminate the employment
of any employee due to installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment … by serving a
written notice on the worker and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before
the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy,
Labor: Part 2D(6)
 NLRC Ruling: Reversed the decision of the LA, but Raytheon was directed to pay Almodiel
PHP100,00 as separation pay. NO CA ruling, petition went straight to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE + HELD: W/N Almodiel was legally dismissed on the ground of redundancy [YES]
 Termination of an employee's services because of redundancy is governed by LC2831. There is
no dispute that the requirements set forth in the Labor Code was duly complied with by
Raytheon. Almodiel was advised one (1) month before his employment, was given his separation
pay (~PHP54k), and the DOLE was served a copy of the notice of termination.
 What is being ascertained in this instant case is whether there was bad faith or malice in the
abolition of Almodiel’s position of Cost Accounting Manager. The Supreme Court ruled that
there was none. For even conceding that the functions of petitioner's position were merely
transferred to another department, no malice or bad faith can be imputed from said act.
o This is highly discretionary on the business judgment of the employer. The wisdom
of such decision is not subject to discretionary review on the part of the LA and
NLRC so long as violation of law or merely arbitrary and malicious action is not
shown. This power was shown in previous decisions (e.g. International Macleod, Inc. v.
Intermediate Appellate Court; Bondoc v. People's Bank and Trust Co.; Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v.
NLRC)
o Indeed, an employer has no legal obligation to keep more employees than are
necessary for the operation of its business. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that a
cost accounting system was installed and used at Raytheon subsidiaries and plants
worldwide
 [IMPORTANT TO THE SYLLABUS TOPIC] On Almodiel’s allegation that Chai does
not have work permit: LC402 requires employment permit only for non-resident aliens. Chai,
as earlier mentioned. is a resident alien. Since he is a resident alien, he does not fall within the
ambit of this provision.
o The purpose of the provision is to allow non-resident aliens to occupy an employee
position if no person in the Philippines is competent, able, and willing to perform a
service which the alien is desired.
 On his career ascendency over Chai: It has been consistently ruled that an objection founded
on the ground that one has better credentials over the appointee is frowned upon so long as the
latter possesses the minimum qualifications for the position. Since it was not alleged that Chai
does not have the qualifications, the Court cannot rule on a matter that is clearly under
management prerogative.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month pay
for every year of service, whichever is higher. …
2 Employment permit of non-resident aliens. Any alien seeking admission to the Philippines for
employment purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for
employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor. …
 Page 2 of 5

McBurnie v. Ganzon o Granting that there was a contract of employment executed by the parties, McBurnie
G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 & 186984-85 – October 17, 2013 failed to obtain a work permit which would have allowed him to work for any of
J. Reyes the respondents.
 In the absence of such permit, the employment agreement was void and
Topic: Alien Employment Regulation thus, could not be the source of any right or obligation.
Doctrine: Aliens who allege illegal dismissal and seek to claim under our labor laws, must necessarily Issues + Held:
establish, first and foremost, that they were qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment within our 1. W/N petitioner was illegally dismissed – NO.
jurisdiction. o As correctly pointed out by NLRC, the employment agreement could not have given
rise to an employer-employee relationship by reason of legal impossibility.
Petitioner: Andrew James McBurnie ▪ The two conditions that form part of their agreement, namely, the
Respondents: Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., and E.Ganzon, Inc. successful completion of the project and McBurnie’s acquisition of an Alien
Employment Permit, remained unsatisfied.
Case Summary: McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against o Considering that McBurnie, an Australian, alleged illegal dismissal and sought to claim
respondents, in light of his termination as Executive Vice President of EGI. When he was compelled to go home to Australia to under our labor laws, it was necessary for him to establish, first and foremost, that he
recuperate from an accident, he was informed that his services would no longer be needed because their intended project would no was qualified and duly authorized to obtain employment within our jurisdiction.
longer push through. The respondents contend that there was no employer-employee relationship since McBurnie had not yet obtained ▪ Art. 40, Title II of the Labor Code reads:
an alien work permit. The Supreme Court held that McBurnie needed to prove EER first before they can rule on illegal dismissal. Since  Art. 40. Employment permit for non-resident aliens. – Any alien seeking
McBurnie sought to claim under our labor laws, it was necessary for him to establish first that he was qualified and duly authorized to admission to the Philippines for employment purposes and any
obtain employment within our jurisdiction. domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for
employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment
Facts: permit from the DOLE.
 Oct 4, 2002, McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and o Clearly, McBurnie’s failure to obtain an employment permit, by itself, necessitates the
other monetary claims against the respondents. dismissal of his labor complaint.
o He claimed that on May 11, 1999, he signed a 5-year employment agreement with the ▪ First, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, EER must first be
company EGI as an Executive Vice-President who shall oversee the management of established.
the company's hotels and resorts within the Philippines.  The conditions on the employment agreement forms
o On Nov 1999, he figured in an accident that compelled him to go back to Australia (completion of the hotel project and McBurnie’s acquisition of
while recuperating from his injuries. While in Australia, he was informed by an Alien Employment Permit) failed to materialize. Hence,
respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer needed because their intended McBurnie was not able to sufficiently rebut respondents’ defense
project would no longer push through because of lack of funds. of the non-existence of EER.
 The respondents opposed the complaint, contending that their agreement with McBurnie was ▪ Second, McBurnie failed to present any employment permit which would
to jointly invest in and establish a company for the management of hotels. have authorized him to obtain employment in the Philippines.
o They did not intend to create an employer-employee relationship, and the execution  This circumstance negates his claim that he had been working
of the employment contract that was being invoked by McBurnie was solely for the for respondents by virtue of an EER.
purpose of allowing him to obtain an alien work permit in the Philippines.
▪ Third, McBurnie failed to present other competent evidence other than the
o At the time he left for Australia, he had not yet obtained a work permit.
employment agreement to prove his claim of an EER.
 Sept 30, 2004: The LA declared McBurnie as having been illegally dismissed and thus entitled to
 The 4 criteria for the determination of an EER were not satisfied.
receive almost P60M in salaries, benefits and damages.
 McBurnie also failed to show through any document such as
 Respondents appealed to the NLRC.
payslips or vouchers that his salaries were paid by the company.
o They filed their Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond, and posted an
appeal bond in the amount of P100,000.
2. W/N respondents’ appeal bond should be reduced – YES.
o NLRC denied. MR also denied.
o Meritorious grounds, accompanied by the posting of the required appeal bond in a
 Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA. reasonable amount, can justify the reduction of the appeal bond.
o CA granted the petition and remanded the case to the NLRC for further proceedings. o Given its considerable amount, the Court finds reason in the respondents’ claim that
 Nov 17, 2009: NLRC reversed the LA decision. to require an appeal bond in such amount could only deprive them of the right to
o Based on the records, McBurnie was never an employee of any of the respondents, appeal, even force them out of business and affect the livelihood of their employees.
but a potential investor in a project with said respondents, barring a claim of dismissal,
much less, an illegal dismissal. Ruling: In lieu of remand to the NLRC, the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner is
DISMISSED.

Labor: Part 2D(6)


GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES
G.R. No. 93666 | April 22, 1991
Feliciano, J.
Topic: Pre-employment, Recruitment and Placement of Workers – Alien Employment Regulation –
Conditions of Grant of Permit; Denial
Doctrine:
 Under Article 40 of the Labor Code, an employer seeking employment of an alien must first
obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor  GMC's right to choose whom
to employ is limited by the statutory requirement of an alien employment permit
 The permissive language of A40(2) indicates that the authority “to take into account whether or
not employment of an alien applicant would ‘redound to the national interest" involves the
exercise of discretion on the part of the issuing authority
Petitioner: GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and EARL TIMOTHY CONE
Respondent: HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, in his capacity as SOLE, HON. BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA, in his capacity as Acting SOLE, and BASKETBALL COACHES ASSOCIATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Summary: Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines appealed the issuance of the alien
employment permit of Earl Timothy Cone bec there was no showing that his hiring would redound to the
national interest. SC held that 1) hiring a foreign coach is not an employer’s prerogative but must adhere
to the requirements in obtaining an alien employment permit, and 2) SOLE did have the authority to take
into account the abovementioned criterion when it granted the alien employment permit.
Facts:
 1 May 1989: NCR DOLE issued an Alien Employment Permit M-0689-3-535 in favor of
petitioner Earl Timothy Cone, a United States citizen, as sports consultant and assistant coach
for petitioner General Milling Corporation ("GMC").
 27 Dec 1989: GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment whereby Cone undertook
to coach GMC's basketball team.
 15 Jan 1990: the Board of Special Inquiry of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
approved Cone's application for a change of admission status from temporary visitor to pre-
arranged employee.
 9 Feb 1990: GMC requested renewal of Cone's alien employment permit. GMC also requested
that it be allowed to employ Cone as full-fledged coach.
o DOLE Regional Director, Luna Piezas, granted the request on 15 Feb 1990.
3 Section 6. Issuance of Employment Permit –– the Secretary of Labor may issue an employment permit
to the applicant based on:
a) Compliance by the applicant and his employer with the requirements of Section 2 hereof;
b) Report of the Bureau Director as to the availability or non-availability of any person in the Philippines
who is competent and willing to do the job for which the services of the applicant are desired.
(c) His assessment as to whether or not the employment of the applicant will redound to the
national interest;
(d) Admissibility of the alien as certified by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation;
(e) The recommendation of the Board of Investments or other appropriate government agencies if the
applicant will be employed in preferred areas of investments or in accordance with the imperative of
economic development;
Labor: Part 2D(6)
Page 3 of 5
 On 18 February 1990, Alien Employment Permit No. M-02903-881, valid until 25 December
1990, was issued
 Private respondent Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines ("BCAP") appealed the
issuance of said alien employment permit to the respondent Secretary of Labor
o SOLE issued a decision ordering cancellation of Cone's employment permit on the
ground that there was no showing that there is no person in the Philippines who is competent,
able and willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring of petitioner Cone would redound
to the national interest.
 GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration – DENIED by Acting SOLE Laguesma
 Hence, petition for certiorari. GMC argues:
o SOLE gravely abused his discretion when he revoked petitioner Cone's alien
employment permit; and
o Section 6 (c), Rule XIV, Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code 3
is null and void as it is in violation of the enabling law as the Labor Code does not
empower SOLE to determine if the employment of an alien would redound to
national interest.
o Hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative
o It is a violation of equal protection clause
o Implementation of SOLE's decision would amount to an impairment of the
obligations of contracts
o SOLE should have deferred to the findings of Commission on Immigration and
Deportation as to the necessity of employing Cone
W/N hiring of a foreign coach is an employer’s prerogative – NO
 There is no legal basis for such claim
 Under Article 40 of the Labor Code4, an employer seeking employment of an alien must first
obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor.
 GMC's right to choose whom to employ is limited by the statutory requirement of an alien
employment permit
 On equal protection
o Petitioners will not find solace in the equal protection clause of the Constitution
o No comparison can be made between petitioner Cone and Mr. Norman Black as the
latter is "a long time resident of the country," and thus, not subject to the provisions
of Article 40 of the Labor Code
o Art. 40 applies only to "non-resident aliens."
 On impairment of the obligations of contracts
4 Art. 40. Employment per unit of non-resident aliens. –– Any alien seeking admission to the Philippines
for employment purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for
employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor.
The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after a
determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at
the time of application to perform the services for which the alien is desired.
For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said employment permit may be issued
upon recommendation of the government agency charged with the supervision of said registered
enterprise.

o Provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations requiring
alien employment permits were in existence long before petitioners entered into their
contract of employment
o It is firmly settled that provisions of applicable laws, especially provisions relating to
matters affected with public policy, are deemed written into contracts.
o Private parties cannot constitutionally contract away the otherwise applicable
provisions of law
 On deferring to the findings of the CID
o Labor Code itself empowers SOLE to make a determination as to the availability of
the services of a "person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the
time of application to perform the services for which an alien is desired
o DOLE is the agency vested with jurisdiction to determine the question of availability
of local workers
W/N SOLE, in the granting of employment permits, has NO authority to take into account
whether or not employment of an alien applicant would "redound to the national interest"
because Article 40 does not explicitly refer to such assessment – No, SOLE has authority to take
it into account
 First, the second paragraph of Article 40 says: "[t]he employment permit may be issued to a non-
resident alien or to the applicant employer after a determination of the non-availability of a
person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to
perform the services for which the alien is desired."
o The permissive language employed in the Labor Code indicates that the authority
granted involves the exercise of discretion on the part of the issuing authority.
 Second, Article 12 of the Labor Code sets forth a statement of objectives that the SOLE should
and must take into account in exercising his authority and jurisdiction granted by the Labor
Code
a) To promote and maintain a state of full employment through improved manpower
training, allocation and utilization;
xxx xxx xxx
c) To facilitate a free choice of available employment by persons seeking work in
conformity with the national interest;
d) To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in conformity with the national
interest;
e) To regulate the employment of aliens, including the establishment of a registration
and/or work permit system;
Ruling: Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for certiorari for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
Labor: Part 2D(6)
Page 4 of 5
Pacific Consultants v Schonfeld
G.R. No. 166920 | February 19, 2007
Callejo, Sr., J
Doctrine: Section 5, Rule XIV (Employment of Aliens) of the Omnibus Rules requires the Contract of
employment between the employer and the employee in the approval of an AEP.
Summary: Schonfeld was employed by the PPI as Sector Manager in its Water and Sanitation Department
but was terminated in 1999 due to lack of success of PPI in the water and sanitation business. Schonfeld
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PPI and prayed for reinstatement of separation pay, but was
denied by the LA and NLRC. The CA reversed this and found that an employee-employer relationship
exists between Schonfeld and PPI thru the four-fold test. The SC affirmed this ruling and also ruled that
the venue of the complaint was proper due to the lack of restrictive words limiting the venue of arbitration
in the conditions appended to Schonfeld’s contract.
Petitioners: Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. and Jens Peter Henrichsen
Respondents: Klaus K. Schonfeld
FACTS:
 Schonfeld is a Canadian citizen and a resident of New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada. He’s
an environmental engineering and water supply and sanitation consultant
 Pacicon Philippines, Inc. (PPI) provides specialty and technical services here and abroad. It is a
subsidiary of Pacific Consultants International of Japan (PCIJ). The president of PPI, Jens Peter
Henrichsen, who was also the director of PCIJ, was based in Tokyo, Japan.
 Thru Henrichsen, PCIJ employed Schonfeld as PPI Sector Manager in its Water and Sanitation
Department. His salary is paid for by PPI and PCIJ.
 January 7, 1998 - Henrichsen transmitted a letter of employment to Schonfeld in Canada, requesting
him to accept the same and affix his conformity thereto. Respondent made some revisions in the
letter of employment and signed the contract. He then sent a copy to Henrichsen.
o Schonfeld was given the status resident alien. He also applied for an Alien Employment
Permit which was granted by DOLE.
 Schonfeld was able to receive compensation from PPI for February to June 1998, November to
December 1998, and January to August 1999. He was also reimbursed by PPI for other work
expenses.
 May 5, 1999 - Schonfeld received a termination letter from Henrichsen, effective August 4, due to
PCIJ & PPI not being successful in the water and sanitation sector in the Philippines.
o July 24 - Schonfeld received another email from Henrichsen requesting him to stay put in
his job after August 5 to discuss and report on other projects.
o He continued to work in PPI until October 1, 1999.
 Schonfeld filed several money claims with PPI, including unpaid salary, leave pay, air fare from Manila
to Canada, and cost of shipment of goods to Canada. PPI partially settled some of his claims
(US$5,635.99), but refused to pay the rest.
 December 5, 2000 - Schonfeld filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. He
alleged that
o PPI had not notified the DOLE of its decision to close one of its departments, which
resulted in his dismissal.
o PPI failed to notify him that his employment was terminated after August 4, 1999.
o Company acted in bad faith and disregarded his rights.
o He also claimed for separation pay and other unpaid benefits.
 Schonfeld also prayed for the following reliefs:

o Reinstatement, or if reinstatement not feasible, US$16,400.00 as separation pay;
o Payment of US$10,131.76 for unpaid salaries, leave pay, air travel and shipment of goods
from Manila to Canada
o Damages amounting to US $10,000.00 and 10% of total monetary award as atty’s fees.
 Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss.
o Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
o Venue was improper. Under the principle of lex loci contractus, complaint should have
been filed in Tokyo, Japan since Schonfeld’s cause of action was based on his letter of
employment executed in Tokyo, Japan dated January 7, 1998.
o Petitioners claimed that respondent did not offer any justification for filing his complaint
against PPI before the NLRC in the Philippines.
o Under Section 12 of the General Conditions of Employment appended to Schonfeld’s
letter of employment, complainant and PCIJ had agreed that any employment-related
dispute should be brought before the London Court of Arbitration.
 Labor Arbiter granted the Motion to dismiss.
o January 7, 1998 contract of employment between respondent and PCIJ was controlling;
o the Philippines was only the "duty station" where Schonfeld was required to work under
the General Conditions of Employment.
o PCIJ, not PPI, was Schonfeld’s employer.
o Since the parties had agreed that any differences regarding employer-employee relationship
should be submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of arbitration in London, this
agreement is controlling.
 NLRC affirmed LA decision in toto.
 CA: NLRC decision reversed, case remanded to the LA.
o Schonfeld: absence or existence of a written contract of employment is not decisive of
whether he is an employee of PPI. It was PPI, thru Henrichsen that directed his duties as
Sector Manager of PPI; He submitted as proof his letter-proposal to DBP for PPI to
provide consultancy services.
 Alien Employment Permit indicated that he was an employee of PPI.
 It was PPI president Henrichsen who terminated his employment, and PPI who
paid his salary and reimbursed his expenses.
o CA applied the four-fold test and found that Schonfeld was an employee of PPI.
o Re venue: contract did not preclude parties from bringing a case re contract to other
venues. Venue is not exclusive because there is no stipulation that the complaint cannot be
filed in any other forum other than in the Philippines.
ISSUES & HELD:
1. W/N there is an employer-employee relationship between PPI and Schonfeld – YES.
 LA and NLRC inexplicably ignored the documentary evidence of Schonfeld.
 PPI applied for an Alien Employment Permit for Schonfeld and they indicated there that he was their
employee. They appended a copy of his employment contract there.
o Section 5, Rule XIV (Employment of Aliens) of the Omnibus Rules requires the Contract
of employment between the employer and the employee.
 Schonfeld had an employment contract with PPI, otherwise PPI wouldn’t have filed for his APE
under DOLE. PPI is estopped from claiming that PCIJ is Schonfeld’s employer.
 The court agrees w/ CA that there was an employer-employee relationship under the four-fold test.
o Elements of the four-fold test:
Labor: Part 2D(6)
Page 5 of 5
 (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c)
the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s
conduct.
o An employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are
performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means
to be used in reaching such end.
 SC quoting the CA: the power to control and supervise Schonfeld’s work performance is with PPI.
o Termination of the employment relationship was exercised by the President of PPI.
Letterhead used by the company in the termination letter DOES NOT control – it is the
person who exercised the power to terminate the employee.
o Non-signing of the the second letter of employment executed in the Philippines is
inconsequential. An employer-employee relationship may exist even in the absence of a
written contract, as long as the 4 elements are present.
2. W/N venue is proper - YES.
 Stipulations re venue are valid and enforceable but they do not supersede Rule 4 of the ROC in the
absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They add additional forums but do not limit venue to a
specified place. If they wanted to restrict venue, they should’ve clearly and categorically stated such
(Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan)
 In the instant case, no restrictive words are in the contract, therefore the court of arbitration in
London IS NOT an exclusive venue for their disputes.
 Petitioners’ insistence on the application of the principle of forum non conveniens must be rejected.
o Schonfeld being a Canadian citizen does not warrant application of the principle because:
 Labor Code does not include forum non conveniens as a ground for the
dismissal of the complaint
 dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence,
it is properly considered as defense
 Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so;
provided, that the following requisites are met: (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.
(Bank of America v CA)
- Requisites are present in the case.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
76563 is AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for disposition of the case on the
merits. Cost against petitioners.