6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the Canadian authorities and certified by the Philippine Embassy; that the NLRC Sixth Division exhibited bias and bad faith when it made a wrong computation on the award of backpay; and that, assuming there was illegal dismissal, the CA$2,636.80, earlier paid to Arriola, and his home leaves should be deducted from the award of backpay. In his Comment,[23] Arriola countered that foreign laws could not apply to employment contracts if they were contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, invoking Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Ople (Pakistan International);[24] that the ESA was not applicable because it was contrary to his constitutional right to due process; that the petitioners failed to substantiate an authorized cause to justify his dismissal under Philippine labor law; and that the petitioners could not anymore claim a deduction of CA$2,636.80 from the award of backpay because it was raised for the first time on appeal. In their Reply,[25] the petitioners asserted that R.A. No. 8042 recognized the applicability of foreign laws on labor contracts; that the Pakistan International case was superseded by EDI-Staffbuilders and other subsequent cases; and that SNC-Lavalin suffering financial losses was an authorized cause to terminate Arriola's employment. In his Memorandum,[26] Arriola asserted that his employment contract was executed in the Philippines and that the alleged authorized cause of financial losses by the petitioners was not substantiated by evidence. In their Consolidated Memorandum,[27] the petitioners reiterated that the ESA was applicable in the present case and that recent jurisprudence recognized that the parties could agree on the applicability of foreign laws in their labor contracts. The Court's Ruling The petition lacks merit. Application of foreign laws with labor contracts At present, Filipino laborers, whether skilled or professional, are enticed to depart from the motherland in search of greener pastures. There is a distressing reality that the offers of employment abroad are more lucrative than those found in our own soils. To reap the promises of the foreign dream, our unsung heroes must endure homesickness, solitude, discrimination, mental and emotional struggle, at times, physical turmoil, and, worse, death. On the other side of the table is the growing number of foreign employers attracted in hiring Filipino workers because of their reasonable compensations and globally-competitive skills and qualifications. Between the dominant foreign employers and the vulnerable and desperate OFWs, however, there is an inescapable truth that the latter are in need of greater safeguard and protection. In order to afford the full protection of labor to our OFWs, the State has vigorously enacted laws, adopted regulations and policies, and established agencies to ensure that their needs are satisfied and that they continue to work in a humane living environment outside of the country. Despite these efforts, there are still issues left unsolved in the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61749 6/16