LWV Construction Corp vs. Marcelo Dupo

Case No. 17 LWV Construction Corporation v. Marcelo Dupo G.R. No. 172342, July 13, 2009 FACTS: Petitioner LWV, a domestic corporation recruiting Filipino workers, hired respondent as Civil Structural Superintendent to work in Saudi Arabia for its principal, Mohammad Al-Mojil Group/Establishment (MMG). Sometime February 1992, respondent signed his first overseas employment contract. It was renewed five times and all were fixed-period, renewable contracts for 1 year. The 6th and last contract stated that respondent's employment starts upon reporting to work and ends when he leaves the work site. When respondent left Saudi Arabia for the Philippines on April 30, 1999 and thereby termination his 6th contract, he informed MMG through LWV that he needs to extend his vacation because his son was hospitalized. He also sought a promotion with salary adjustment. In reply, MMG informed him that his promotion is subject to management's review; that his services are still needed; that he was issued a plane ticket for his return flight to Saudi Arabia; and that his decision regarding his employment must be made within 7 days, otherwise, MMG "will be compelled to cancel his slot." On July 6, 1999, respondent resigned. Under the Law of Saudi Arabia, an employee who rendered at least 5 years in a company within the jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia, is entitled to the so-called long service award which is known to others as longevity pay of at least one half month pay for every year of service. In excess of five years an employee is entitled to one month pay for every year of service. When he followed up his claim for long service award and the MMG failed to respond, he filed a complaint for payment of service award against LWV before the NLRC. Aside from the allegation that it was already paid by MMG after his 6th contract ended, LWV argued that the action has prescribed when respondent filed the compliant 1 year and 7 months after his 6 th contract ended, using Article 13 of the Saudi Labor Law as basis which provides that action to enforce payment of service award must be filed one year from the termination of the labor contract for a specific period. ISSUE: Whether or not the action against petitioner has prescribed with Article 13 of the Saudi Labor Law as basis. HELD: No, the Supreme Court held that what will apply on this particular case is not Art. 13 of the Saudi Labor Law but Art. 291 of the Philippine Labor Code which provides for a 3 year prescription period for all money claims from employee-employer relationship. A foreign procedural law shall not be applied even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law. The Court did not apply the Art. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that “if the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it shall also be barred in the Philippine island because the Court, in light of the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, Art. 48 cannot be applied ex proprio vigore insofar as it ordains the application of the provision of the Saudi Law. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor. The Court therefore leaned on the constitutional provision of on protection to labor rather that adopting the provision of the foreign law.