Practice question
In the overseas-employment setting addressed by IPAMS, a contract signed in the Philippines contains no express choice of the foreign labor statute invoked by the employer. The employer authenticates that statute and argues that proof alone necessarily supplies the missing contractual choice. Assume the other requirements are not at issue. Which is correct?
- Proof and an express contractual choice are distinct requirements; authentication alone does not supply the missing choice.
- Authentication necessarily rewrites the signed contract.
- Every foreign employer has an automatic choice clause.
- The employee's travel ticket conclusively specifies all foreign laws.
- A foreign statute cannot ever be authenticated.
Legal references
- IPAMS v. De Vera, G.R.205703, March7 2016, main decision, contractual choice of law and lex loci contractus; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/61749
- Civil Code Articles17 and1306; https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.