0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
225 vizualizări1 pagină
1. ATCI Overseas Corporation and the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait hired Josefa Echin as a medical technologist under a two-year contract to work in Kuwait. Echin was terminated within one year for failing her probationary period.
2. Echin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ATCI in the Philippines. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of Echin, ordering back wages to be paid.
3. ATCI appealed, arguing that Kuwaiti law should apply as stated in the contract. However, ATCI failed to present evidence of the relevant Kuwaiti laws, so Philippine law was applied based on the legal
1. ATCI Overseas Corporation and the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait hired Josefa Echin as a medical technologist under a two-year contract to work in Kuwait. Echin was terminated within one year for failing her probationary period.
2. Echin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ATCI in the Philippines. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of Echin, ordering back wages to be paid.
3. ATCI appealed, arguing that Kuwaiti law should apply as stated in the contract. However, ATCI failed to present evidence of the relevant Kuwaiti laws, so Philippine law was applied based on the legal
1. ATCI Overseas Corporation and the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait hired Josefa Echin as a medical technologist under a two-year contract to work in Kuwait. Echin was terminated within one year for failing her probationary period.
2. Echin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ATCI in the Philippines. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of Echin, ordering back wages to be paid.
3. ATCI appealed, arguing that Kuwaiti law should apply as stated in the contract. However, ATCI failed to present evidence of the relevant Kuwaiti laws, so Philippine law was applied based on the legal
ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G. IKDAL and MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH-KUWAIT
vs. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, (G.R. No. 178551,October 11, 2010)
Doctrine of Procesual Presumption: The party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden proving the law, otherwise the same shall be presumed as similar to ours.
FACTS: Echin was hired by 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 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. Petitioners maintain that they should not be held liable because respondents employment contract specifically stipulates that her employment shall be governed by the Civil Service Law and Regulations of Kuwait.
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. Ruling: Court denied the petition. According to RA 8042: 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 presumption which, 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 procesual 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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) 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 which reads: SEC. 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (emphasis supplied)