Case Digest (G.R. No. 120077)
Facts:
The Manila Hotel Corp. and Manila Hotel Intl. Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana and Marcelo G. Santos, G.R. No. 120077, October 13, 2000, Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are The Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) and Manila Hotel International Company, Limited (MHICL); respondent is Marcelo G. Santos, claimant for illegal dismissal; the NLRC and Labor Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana are respondents in the certiorari proceeding. MHICL is a Hong Kong corporation of which MHC was an incorporator and 50% stockholder; MHC was still a government-owned and controlled corporation when the case was filed.
In May–June 1988 Santos, then employed in Oman, accepted an offer from the Palace Hotel, Beijing, to work as a printer under a two‑year employment contract. He signed a June 4, 1988 contract (employment to commence September 1, 1988; US$900/month, payable 14 times a year), later amended effective November 5, 1988, with Mr. Gerhard R. Shmidt and Mr. Hans J. Henk acting as Palace Hotel representatives; MHICL’s vice president signed the contract under the word “noted.” Santos worked in Beijing until the Palace Hotel informed him in August–September 1989 that his position would be terminated because the printshop would not operate in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square events; he was repatriated to the Philippines on October 3, 1989.
On February 20, 1990, Santos filed with the Arbitration Branch, NLRC, a complaint for illegal dismissal naming MHC, MHICL, the Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt, alleging wrongful retrenchment and seeking various money and damages claims. Labor Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana rendered judgment for Santos on June 27, 1991, directing respondents to pay substantial sums (including US$20,820 as unearned salaries and peso damages). Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which on August 28, 1992, declared the arbiter’s decision null for want of jurisdiction and enjoined Santos to file with the POEA. Santos moved for reconsideration, arguing he was not an “overseas contract worker” under POEA jurisdiction.
On May 31, 1993, the NLRC reversed its August 28, 1992 resolution, determined it had jurisdiction, and ordered further proceedings. After hearings before successive arbiters and a report by Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera, the NLRC, on December 15, 1994, affirmed de Vera’s recommendation and directed petitioners to pay Santos US$12,600 (unexpired salaries), US$3,600 (extra four months salary), US$3,600 (14th month pay) — totaling US$19,800 — plus ten percent attorney’s fees. The NLRC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on March 30, 1995.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on May 22, 1995 seeking annulment of the NLRC’s May 31, 1993 order (declaring NLRC jurisdiction), the December 15, 1994 decision, and the March 30, 1995 denial of reconsideration, alleging lack or excess of jurisdiction and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC (and the Labor Arbiter) have jurisdiction to entertain Santos’s complaint, or was jurisdiction exclusively with the POEA (i.e., is the NLRC a forum non conveniens in this case)?
- Can petitioners MHC and MHICL be held liable as employers — either by piercing the corporate veil to make MHC liable, or by treating MHICL as Santos’s employer?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in assumin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)