Manila Hotel vs NLRC

October 2000

1.The only link that the Philippines has in this

The Supreme Court emphasized that under

case is the fact that Santos is a Filipino;

the

rule

of forum

non

conveniens,

Philippine court or agency may assume

an

2.However, the Palace Hotel and MHIL are

overseas worker in Oman. In June 1988, he

foreign corporations MHC cannot be held

was recruited by Palace Hotel in Beijing,

liable because it merely owns 50% of MHIL, it

China. Due to higher pay and benefits,

has no direct business in the affairs of the

(1) that the Philippine court is one to which

Santos agreed to the hotels job offer and so

Palace Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction

the parties may conveniently resort to;

he started working there in November 1988.

cant be pierced because it was not shown

(2) that the Philippine court is in a position to

The employment contract between him and

that MHC is directly managing the affairs of

make an intelligent decision as to the law

Palace

MHIL. Hence, they are separate entities.

and the facts; and

3.Santos contract with the Palace Hotel was

(3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to

not entered into in the Philippines;

have power to enforce its decision.

that he will be laid off due to business

4.Santos contract was entered into without

None of the above conditions are apparent in

reverses.

the intervention of the POEA (had POEA

the case at bar.

In

May

1988,

Hotel

intervention
Employment

Marcelo

was
of

Santos

however

the

was

without

Philippine

Administration

the

Overseas

(POEA).

In

August 1989, Palace Hotel notified Santos

In

September

1989,

he

was

intervened,

officially terminated.
In February 1990, Santos filed a complaint for
illegal

dismissal

Corporation

against

(MHC)

and

Manila

Hotel

Manila

Hotel

NLRC

agents/officers

upon it. MHC is a government owned and

Philippines;

labor arbiter who handled the case ruled in

favor of Santos. The National Labor Relations
Commission

(NLRC)

affirmed

the

labor

arbiter.
ISSUE: Whether

or

not

the

NLRC

has

jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient
forum for the following reasons:

have

5.MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing

business

manages the affair of the Palace Hotel. The

not

will hear the case);

was impleaded but no summons were served

a foreign corporation (Hong Kong). MHIL

does

jurisdiction because it will be the POEA which

International, Ltd. (MHIL). The Palace Hotel

controlled corporation. It owns 50% of MHIL,

still

in

the
are

Philippines;
not

residents

their
of

the

Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot

possibly determine all the relevant facts
pertaining to the case. It is not competent to
determine
complained

the
of

facts

because

happened

the

acts

outside

our

jurisdiction. It cannot determine which law is

applicable.

And

in

case

judgment

is

rendered, it cannot be enforced against the

Palace Hotel (in the first place, it was not
served any summons).

jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do

so provided: