LABOR DOCTRINES

Pakistan v. Ople

Art 1306 of the Civil Code provides: 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.

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. The law relating to labor
and employment is clearly such an area and parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their
relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other. It is thus
necessary to appraise the contractual provisions invoked by petitioner PIA in terms of their consistency with
applicable Philippine law and regulations.

Triple Eight Integrated Services v. NLRC

The rule that lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) governs on this jurisdiction.
There is no question that the contract of employment in this case was perfected here in the Philippines.
Therefore, the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and other laws affecting labor apply in this
case. Furthermore, settled is the rule that the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious
to the forum's public policy.

The requirement for a medical certificate under Article 284 of the Labor Code cannot be dispensed with;
otherwise, it would sanction the unilateral and arbitrary determination by the employer of the gravity or extent
of the employee's illness and thus defeat the public policy on the protection of labor

This public policy should be borne in mind in this case because to allow foreign employers to determine for
and by themselves whether an overseas contract worker may be dismissed on the ground of illness would
encourage illegal or arbitrary pre-termination of employment contracts.

Manila Hotel Corp v. NLRC

Forum non conveniens applicable in the instance case. MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing business in the
Philippines; their agents/officers are not residents of the Philippines;

Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot possibly determine all the relevant facts pertaining to the case. It is not
competent to determine the facts because the acts complained of happened outside our jurisdiction. It cannot
determine which law is applicable. And in case a judgment is rendered, it cannot be enforced against the Palace
Hotel (in the first place, it was not served any summons).

The Supreme Court emphasized that under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided:

(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.

None of the above conditions are apparent in the case at bar.

Cadalin v. POEA
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such
as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by
the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law (Salonga,
Private International Law, 131 [1979]).

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed
either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.

However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant
when the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute." Said statute has the practical effect of treating
the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 152-153 [1938]).

A "borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the
pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of "borrowing statutes," one form
provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the
forum even though the local statute has not run against it (Goodrich and Scoles, Conflict of Laws, 152-
153 [1938]).

Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople

The contract was not only executed in the Philippines, it was also performed here, at least partially;
private respondents are Philippine citizens and respondents, while petitioner, although a foreign
corporation, is licensed to do business (and actually doing business) and hence resident in the
Philippines; lastly, private respondents were based in the Philippines in between their assigned flights
to the Middle East and Europe. All the above contacts point to the Philippine courts and administrative
agencies as a proper forum for the resolution of contractual disputes between the parties.

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.

PCL Shipping v. NLRC

In the Philippines, the rule of lex loci contractus applies in labor contracts. Therefore, the Labor Code
of the Philippines applies where the Contract of Employment was executed in the Philippines with the
supervision of the POEA.

EDI Staff-builders v. NLRC

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the
burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly
pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is
presumed to know only domestic or forum law. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded,
is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours, which is the International Law
doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption