Saudi Arabian Airlines v.
Rebesencio
Facts: Rebesencio et.al. were hired by Saudia as Temporary Flight Attendants with the accreditation and
approval of the POEA. Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were separated
from service on various dates in 2006. Respondents contended that the termination of their
employment was illegal. They alleged that the termination was made solely because they were pregnant.
Respondents were told that if they did not resign, Saudia would terminate them all the same. The threat
of termination entailed the loss of benefits. Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents' maternity
leaves and demand for their resignation on its "Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin
Attendants". Under the Unified Contract, the employment of a Flight Attendant who becomes pregnant
is rendered void.Rather than comply and tender resignation letters, respondents filed separate appeal
letters that were all rejected. Faced with the dilemma of resigning or totally losing their benefits,
respondents executed resignation letters. Respondents filed a Complaint against Saudia. The latter
assailed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It claimed that all the determining points of contact
referred to foreign law and insisted that the Complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum
non conveniens. It added that respondents had no cause of action as they resigned voluntarily. Executive
Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco rendered the Decision dismissing respondents' Complaint .On
respondents' appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of Executive Labor Arbiter. It explained that
"[considering that complainants-appellants are OFWs, the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC has [sic]
jurisdiction to hear and decide their complaint for illegal termination." The NLRC denied Saudia's Motion
for Reconsideration. The CA denied Saudia's Rule 65 Petition. Hence, this Appeal was filed.
Issue: Whether or not Labor Arbiter and the NLRC may exercise jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines
and apply Philippine law in adjudicating the present dispute?
Ruling: Yes. A choice of law governing the validity of contracts or the interpretation of its provisions does
not necessarily imply forum non conveniens. Choice of law and forum non conveniens are entirely
different matters.
Choice of law provisions are an offshoot of the fundamental principle of autonomy of contracts. Article
1306 of the Civil Code: Article 1306. 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.
In contrast, forum non conveniens is a device akin to the rule against forum shopping. It is designed to
frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants that would otherwise be possible if the
venue of litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of either party.
Likewise, contractual choice of law is not determinative of jurisdiction. Stipulating on the laws of a given
jurisdiction as the governing law of a contract does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by tribunals
elsewhere. The reverse is equally true: The assumption of jurisdiction by tribunals does not ipso facto
mean that it cannot apply and rule on the basis of the parties' stipulation.
This court's pronouncements in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation are clear and unmistakable:
Petitioner PIA cannot take refuge in paragraph 10 of its employment agreement which specifies, firstly,
the law of Pakistan as the applicable law of the agreement. We have already pointed out that the
relationship is much affected with public interest and that the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and
regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law to govern their
relationship. . . . 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.
As the present dispute relates to, the illegal termination of respondents' employment, this case is
immutably a matter of public interest and public policy. Consistent with clear pronouncements in law
and jurisprudence, Philippine laws properly find application in and govern this case. 'Moreover, as this
premise for Saudia's insistence on the application forum non conveniens has been shattered, it follows
that Philippine tribunals may properly assume jurisdiction over the present controversy. Philippine
jurisprudence provides ample illustrations of when a court's renunciation of jurisdiction on account of
forum non conveniens is proper or improper.
