Laureano Vs CA

G. R. No.
114776 - February 2, 2000
MENANDRO B. LAUREANO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND SINGAPORE

AIRLINES LIMITED, Respondents.
QUISUMBING, J.:
Facts:
Sometime in 1978, plaintiff is an expatriate employed by Respondent Singapore Airlines

Limited on a contractual basis which is stipulated to last for five (5) years. However, due to
recession, Respondent decided to terminate some of their pilots, included in the termination is
herein plaintiff.
Defendant informed plaintiff of his termination and that he will be paid three (3) months salary
in lieu of three months notice. Because he could not uproot his family on such short notice,
plaintiff requested a three-month notice to afford him time to exhaust all possible avenues for
reconsideration and retention. Defendant gave only two (2) months notice and one (1) month
salary.
Aggrieved, plaintiff instituted a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Defendant
moved to dismiss on jurisdiction grounds. Before said motion was resolved, the complaint
was withdrawn. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant case for damages due to illegal
termination of contract of services before the court a quo.
Again, defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging inter alia: (1) that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, and (2) that Philippine courts have no
jurisdiction over the instant case. Defendant contends that the complaint is for illegal
dismissal together with a money claim arising out of and in the course of plaintiffs
employment "thus it is the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC who have the jurisdiction pursuant to
Article 217 of the Labor Code" and that, since plaintiff was employed in Singapore, all other
aspects of his employment contract and/or documents executed in Singapore. Thus,
defendant postulates that Singapore laws should apply and courts thereat shall have
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff claimed that: (1) where the items demanded in a complaint are the natural
consequences flowing from a breach of an obligation and not labor benefits, the case is
intrinsically a civil dispute; (2) the case involves a question that is beyond the field of
specialization of labor arbiters; and (3) if the complaint is grounded not on the employee's
dismissal per se but on the manner of said dismissal and the consequence thereof, the case
falls under the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
Defendant filed its answer reiterating the grounds relied upon in its motion to dismiss and
further arguing that plaintiff is barred by laches, waiver, and estoppel from instituting the
complaint and that he has no cause of action .
Trial court handed down its decision in favor of plaintiff. The appellate court set aside the
decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not courts may take judicial notice of foreign law.
Neither can the Court determine whether the termination of the plaintiff is legal under the
Singapore Laws because of the defendant's failure to show which specific laws of Singapore
Laws apply to this case. The Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of
Singapore. The defendant that claims the applicability of the Singapore Laws to this case has
the burden of proof. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law should
be applied.
2. What is applicable is Article 291 of the Labor Code, viz:
Art. 291. Money claims. All money claims arising from employee-employer relations accruing
during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause
of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.
In illegal dismissal, it is settled, that the ten-year prescriptive period fixed in Article 1144 of the
Civil Code may not be invoked by petitioners, for the Civil Code is a law of general
application, while the prescriptive period fixed in Article 292 of the Labor Code [now Article
291] is a SPECIAL LAW applicable to claims arising from employee-employer relations.
The language of Art. 291 of the Labor Code does not limit its application only to "money
claims specifically recoverable under said Code" but covers all money claims arising from an
employee-employer relations"
In the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal termination was filed by plaintiff-
appelle only on January 8, 1987 or more than four (4) years after the effectivity date of his
dismissal on November 1, 1982. Clearly, plaintiff-appellee's action has already prescribed.
Petitioner claims that the running of the prescriptive period was tolled when he filed his
complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations
Commission. Although the commencement of a civil action stops the running of the statute of
prescription or limitations, its dismissal or voluntary abandonment by the plaintiff leaves in
exactly the same position as though no action had been commenced at all."
3. Whether petitioner's separation from the company due to retrenchment was valid.
It is a settled rule that contracts have the force of law between the parties. From the moment
the same is perfected, the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been
expressly stipulated but also to all consequences which, according to their nature, may be in
keeping with good faith, usage and law. Thus, when plaintiff-appellee accepted the offer of
employment, he was bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the contract, among
others, the right of mutual termination by giving three months written notice or by payment of
three months salary. Such provision is clear and readily understandable, hence, there is no
room for interpretation.

Laureano Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laureano Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Laureano Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G. R. No.

114776 - February 2, 2000

MENANDRO B. LAUREANO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND SINGAPORE

Sometime in 1978, plaintiff is an expatriate employed by Respondent Singapore Airlines

1. Whether or not courts may take judicial notice of foreign law.

2. What is applicable is Article 291 of the Labor Code, viz:

You might also like