1) The respondent was hired by petitioner ATCI on behalf of the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait as a medical technologist under a two-year contract. She was terminated within one year for not passing her probationary period.
2) The respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC against ATCI for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering ATCI to pay her unpaid salary. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
3) On appeal, the petitioners argued that as a foreign government entity, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait had immunity. However, the court ruled that under Philippine law, the private employment agency that implements the contract is liable
1) The respondent was hired by petitioner ATCI on behalf of the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait as a medical technologist under a two-year contract. She was terminated within one year for not passing her probationary period.
2) The respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC against ATCI for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering ATCI to pay her unpaid salary. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
3) On appeal, the petitioners argued that as a foreign government entity, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait had immunity. However, the court ruled that under Philippine law, the private employment agency that implements the contract is liable
1) The respondent was hired by petitioner ATCI on behalf of the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait as a medical technologist under a two-year contract. She was terminated within one year for not passing her probationary period.
2) The respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC against ATCI for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering ATCI to pay her unpaid salary. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
3) On appeal, the petitioners argued that as a foreign government entity, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait had immunity. However, the court ruled that under Philippine law, the private employment agency that implements the contract is liable
1) The respondent was hired by petitioner ATCI on behalf of the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait as a medical technologist under a two-year contract. She was terminated within one year for not passing her probationary period.
2) The respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC against ATCI for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering ATCI to pay her unpaid salary. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
3) On appeal, the petitioners argued that as a foreign government entity, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait had immunity. However, the court ruled that under Philippine law, the private employment agency that implements the contract is liable
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
14. ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G.
IKDAL and MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH-KUWAITPetitioners,
vs. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, Respondent.G.R. No. 178551October 11, 2010
FACTS:
Respondent Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI in behalf of its principal co-petitioner, Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical technologist under a two-year contract with a monthly salary of US$1,200.00.Within a year. Respondent was terminated for not passing the probationary period which was under the Memorandum of Agreement. Ministry denied respondents request and she returned to the Philippines shouldering her own fair. Respondent filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint against ATCI for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay her $3,600.00, her salary for the three months unexpired portion of the contract. ATCI appealed Labor Arbiters decision, however, NLRC affirmed the latters decision and denied petitioner ATCIs motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner appealed to the Court Appeals contending that their principal being a foreign government agency is immune from suit, and as such, immunity extended to them.
Appellate Court affirmed NLRCs decision. It noted that under the law, a private employment Agency shall assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas worker; hence, it can be sued jointly and severally with the foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners be held liable considering that the contract specifically stipulates that respondents employment shall be governed by the Civil Service Law and Regulations of Kuwait HELD: It is hornbook principle, however, that the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumptionwhich, in this case, petitioners failed to discharge. The Courts ruling in EDI-Staffbuilders Intl., v. NLRC illuminates:
In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for in the contract (e.g. specific causes for termination, termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating to the termination of the employment of Gran.
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law.
Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before us.
The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.