Case Digest (G.R. No. 178382-83)
Facts:
Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Joseph Basso, G.R. Nos. 178382-83, September 23, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Continental Micronesia, Inc. (CMI) is a U.S.-organized foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines; respondent Joseph Basso was a U.S. citizen who resided in the Philippines until his death. In 1990 Basso was offered and accepted the post of General Manager of Continental’s Philippine operations; an employment contract dated February 1, 1991 was later exchanged between Basso and Continental. In November 1992 CMI took over the Philippine operations and Basso continued as General Manager.
On December 20, 1995 CMI informed Basso that he would be offered a consultant position effective February 1, 1996 to July 31, 1996, with no monetary compensation but with certain benefits and a housing-lease advance; Basso made counter-proposals and in March 1996 was told, pursuant to the 1991 contract, that his employment was terminable at will upon thirty days’ notice, and that he would be terminated effective January 31, 1996 and offered severance in consideration of the housing advance. Basso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on December 19, 1996.
CMI moved to dismiss (Feb. 10, 1997), invoking foreign elements and arguing U.S. law applied; the Labor Arbiter initially granted the motion to dismiss (Aug. 27, 1997) applying lex loci contractus/celebrationis and U.S. law. The NLRC remanded for further factual determination, and the Labor Arbiter later issued a Decision (Sept. 24, 1999) dismissing for lack of merit and jurisdiction while finding CMI had voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction. On appeal the NLRC (Nov. 28, 2003) set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, found CMI liable for failure to give due notice (ordering a small monetary award) but agreed the dismissal was for just causes; both parties filed motions for reconsideration which were denied.
Basso filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 83938) and CMI filed its own petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 84281); the Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and, in a decision dated May 23, 2006, granted Basso’s petition, set aside the NLRC decision, declared the dismissal illegal, and ordered separation...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reviewing the NLRC’s factual findings in a Rule 65 certiorari proceeding instead of limiting its inquiry to whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion?
- Did the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this illegal dismissal case involving foreign elements?
- Was Basso validly dismissed f...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)