Scribd
Upload
94 views1 page

Laureano Vs CA

The document discusses two cases - Laureano vs CA and Maquiling vs COMELEC. In Laureano vs CA, the plaintiff filed a case for illegal termination from Singapore Airlines. The defendant argued Singapore law should apply. The court ruled it does not take judicial notice of foreign law and the defendant failed to prove Singapore law. In Maquiling vs COMELEC, one party referenced a US law but the court ruled it cannot consider foreign laws not properly presented.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views1 page

Laureano Vs CA

The document discusses two cases - Laureano vs CA and Maquiling vs COMELEC. In Laureano vs CA, the plaintiff filed a case for illegal termination from Singapore Airlines. The defendant argued Singapore law should apply. The court ruled it does not take judicial notice of foreign law and the defendant failed to prove Singapore law. In Maquiling vs COMELEC, one party referenced a US law but the court ruled it cannot consider foreign laws not properly presented.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Laureano vs. CA: Summarizes the facts and legal issue in the case between Laureano and the Court of Appeals discussing jurisdiction over foreign law.
  • Maquilag vs. COMELEC: Discusses the decision made by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding judicial notice of foreign laws.

Laureano vs CA

Facts: Sometime in 1978, plaintiff is an expatriate employed by Respondent Singapore Airlines


Limited on a contractual basis which is stipulated to last for five (5) years. However, due to recession,
Respondent decided to terminate some of their pilots, included in the termination is herein plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed the instant case for damages due to illegal termination of contract of services before the
court a quo. Defendant contends that the complaint is for illegal dismissal together with a money
claim arising out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment "thus it is the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC who have the jurisdiction pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code" and that, since plaintiff
was employed in Singapore, all other aspects of his employment contract and/or documents
executed in Singapore. Thus, defendant postulates that Singapore laws should apply and courts
thereat shall have jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not courts may take judicial notice of foreign law.

Ruling: The answer is in the negative. The Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of
Singapore. The defendant that claims the applicability of the Singapore Laws to this case has the
burden of proof. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine law should be applied.

4. Maquiling vs COMELEC

Facts: Arnado filed herein Motion for Reconsideration assailing the previous decision of the
Supreme Court as to his disqualification to run as mayor. Respondent cites Section 349 of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act of the United States as having the effect of expatriation when he
executed his Affidavit of Renunciation of American Citizenship on April 3, 2009 and thus claims that
he was divested of his American citizenship.

Issue: Whether or not courts may consider applicability of foreign laws to a case upon reference to it
by one of the parties.

Ruling; The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws, which must be presented as public
documents of a foreign country and must be "evidenced by an official publication thereof." Mere
reference to a foreign law in a pleading does not suffice for it to be considered in deciding a case.

You might also like