Practice question
An employer's alleged coercive acts span countriesA andB. The employee resides and works from the Philippines, the parties' relationship is centered partly here, and the alleged injury has substantial Philippine connections. The employer selects countryA solely because one incident happened there and insists that no other contact may be examined. Which analysis follows Saudia v. CA?
- One foreign incident always controls every issue
- The court should identify and evaluate the relevant contacts and the particular tort issue rather than apply a mechanical one-contact rule
- Every Filipino plaintiff automatically wins on the merits
- Foreign law is irrelevant in every case
- The location of the employer's lawyer conclusively controls
Legal references
- Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, GR122191, October8 1998, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/oct1998/gr_122191_1998.html
- Saudia v. Rebesencio, GR198587, January14 2015, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/60343
- Garcia v. Recio, GR138322, October2 2001, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/oct2001/gr_138322_2001.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.