Menandro B. Laureano, petitioner, versus Court of Appeals and Singapore Airlines Limited, respondents
February 2, 2000
Facts:
In 1978, plaintiff Menandro B. Laureano, then Director of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot of Air Manila, applied for employment with defendant company through its Area Manager in Manila. Plaintiff’s appointment was confirmed effective July 21, 1979. On the said date, the defendant also offered plaintiff an extension of his two-year contract to five (5) years effective January 21, 1979 to January 20,1984 subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the contract of employment, which the latter accepted.
Sometime in 1982, defendant initiated cost-cutting measures due to recession. Seventeen (17) expatriate captains in the Airbus fleet were found in excess of the defendant’s requirements. Defendant informed its expatriate pilots including plaintiff of the situation and advised them to take advance leaves. It did not however immediately terminate A-300 pilots. It reviewed their qualifications for possible promotion to the B-747 fleet. Among the 17 Airbus pilots reviewed, 12 were found qualified. Unfortunately, plaintiff was not one of the 12. On October 5, 1982, defendant informed plaintiff of his termination effective November 1, 1982 and that he will be paid three (3) months salary in lieu of three months notice but defendant gave only two (2) months notice and one (1) month salary.
Aggrieved, plaintiff on June 29, 1983, instituted a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Defendant on February 11, 1987 filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds since the plaintiff was employed in Singapore and all other aspects of his employment contract were executed in Singapore, therefore, Singapore laws should apply.
Issue:
Whether or not art.3 of the civil code is applicable in the case bar.
Held:
Yes, the parties are charged with full knowledge of the existing laws at the time they entered into a contract and at the time it is to be operative –and , a person is presumed to be more knowledgeable about his own state law than his alien or foreign comtemporary.
All these considered, the supreme court found sufficient factual and legal basis to conclude that petitioners unlawful termination was for an authorized cause, for which he was given ample notice and opportunity to be heard by respondent company.
