Held among others that the trial courts refusal to

This preview shows page 26 - 28 out of 37 pages.

held, among others, that the trial court’s refusal to assumejurisdiction was not justified byforum non conveniensandremanded the case to the trial court.InRaytheon International, Inc. v. Rouzie, Jr.,86thiscourt sustained the trial court’s assumption of jurisdictionconsidering that the trial court could properly enforcejudgment on the_______________84Id., at pp. 104-105; p. 103.85Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals,supranote 73.86 570 Phil. 151; 546 SCRA 555 (2008) [PerJ.Tinga, Second Division].
2/28/2021SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 74627/37175VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015175Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) vs. Rebesenciopetitioner which was a foreign corporation licensed to dobusiness in the Philippines.InPioneer International, Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr.,87this courtfound no reason to disturb the trial court’s assumption ofjurisdiction over a case in which, as noted by the trialcourt, “it is more convenient to hear and decide the case inthe Philippines because Todaro [the plaintiff] resides in thePhilippines and the contract allegedly breached involve[d]employment in the Philippines.”88InPacificConsultantsInternationalAsia,Inc.v.Schonfeld,89this court held that the fact that thecomplainant in an illegal dismissal case was a Canadiancitizen and a repatriate did not warrant the application offorum non conveniensconsidering that: (1) the Labor Codedoes not includeforum non conveniensas a ground for thedismissal of a complaint for illegal dismissal; (2) thepropriety of dismissing a case based onforum nonconveniensrequires a factual determination; and (3) therequisites for assumption of jurisdiction as laid out inBankof America NT&SA90were all satisfied.In contrast, this court ruled inThe Manila Hotel Corp. v.National Labor Relations Commission91that the NationalLabor Relations Commission was a seriously inconvenientforum. In that case, private respondent Marcelo G. Santoswas working in the Sultanate of Oman when he received aletter from Palace Hotel recruiting him for employment inBeijing, China. Santos accepted the offer. Subsequently,however, he was released from employment supposedly dueto_______________87 561 Phil. 688; 535 SCRA 184 (2007) [PerJ.Carpio, Second Division].88 87Id., at p. 700; p. 593.89Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld,supranote 74.90Bank of America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals,supranote 62.91The Manila Hotel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,supranote 66.176176SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDSaudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) vs. Rebesenciobusiness reverses arising from political upheavals inChina (i.e., the Tiananmen Square incidents of 1989).Santos later filed a Complaint for illegal dismissalimpleading Palace Hotel’s General Manager, Mr. GerhardSchmidt, the Manila Hotel International Company Ltd.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 37 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
N/A
Tags
Choice of law, Saudi Arabian Airlines

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture