1. Edwin Santos was an overseas worker employed as printer at the Zoom Printing Press, Sultanate of Oman. While in Saudi Arabia, on May 2, 1998, he received a letter from Mr. R. Schneider, General Manager of Princetown Hotel, Beijing, China, offering him the same position as printer with a higher monthly salary and increased benefits as he was recommended by his friend Nestor Bueno. Princetown Hotel is a member of the Malaya Hotel Group. Santos signified his acceptance. Subsequently, an employment contract for a period of two years beginning September 1, 1998 was perfected. However, since it was only on November 5, 1988 that Santos left for Beijing, China, the employment contract was amended. The amended employment contract was signed by Mr. Schneider as the representative of Princetown Hotel, and was noted by the Vice President for Operations and Development of MHICL, Miguelito S. Ceguerra. On August 10, 1989, the Princetown Hotel informed respondent Santos by letter signed by Mr. Schneider that his employment at the Princetown Hotel print shop will be terminated due to business reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China. On February 20, 1990, respondent Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against MHC,MHICL, the Princetown Hotel and Mr. Schneider before the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, National Labor Relations Commission. The Princetown Hotel and Mr. Schneider were not served with summons and neither participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter decided against MHC and MHICL. MHC and MHICL appealed to the NLRC which decided in favor of Santos. Hence, the petition for certiorari. Is the principle of forum non conveniens applicable in this case?

ANS. = NO. The main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The only link that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Princetown Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here. Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Princetown Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Saudi Arabia, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment agency of the government. Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made). (See: Manila Hotel Corp v NLRC)

Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.37 The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.

2. Can the Doctrine of Forum non conveniens be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss?

ANS: NO. The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a ground. The factual circumstances cited by petitioners that would allegedly justify the application of the doctrine

of forum non conveniens are matters of defense, the merits of which should properly be threshed out during trial. (People v Todaro)

3. Is ‘dual citizenship’ the same as ‘dual allegiance’?ANS: The term dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's volition. (Mercado v Manzano)

Who can possibly have dual citizenship?

(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;

(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such children are citizens of the latter’s country;

(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country, the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. (Art IV, 1987 Constitution)

4. What are the difference between residence and domicile?

ANS: Residence refers to the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The word "residence" used therein imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. term cannot refer to the presence in this country of a person who has been admitted only on the strength of a permit for temporary residence. On the other hand, domicile to the (1) "the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place" AND (2) “animus manendi”, or the intention of returning there permanently. (Marcos v. COMELEC)

5. Is a person interested to reacquire Filipino citizenship required under RA 9225 to take an oath and to renounce allegiance in favor of another country?

ANS: YES. Under RA 9225, a person is required to take an oath and the last he utters is one of allegiance to the country. He then said that the problem of dual allegiance is no longer the problem of the Philippines but of the other foreign country.

it is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-

born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225

Under this law, natural born Filipino citizens who had been naturalized in foreign countries are deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippine Constitution and laws. Those who become naturalized in foreign countries after the effectivity of the Act retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath