6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The foreign law was not expressly specified in the employment contract The petitioners failed to comply with the first requisite because no foreign law was expressly stipulated in the overseas employment contract with Arriola. In its pleadings, the petitioners did not directly cite any specific provision or stipulation in the said labor contract which indicated the applicability of the Canadian labor laws or the ESA. They failed to show on the face of the contract that a foreign law was agreed upon by the parties. Rather, they simply asserted that the terms and conditions of Arriola's employment were embodied in the Expatriate Policy, Ambatovy Project - Site, Long Term.[45] Then, they emphasized provision 8.20 therein, regarding interpretation of the contract, which provides that said policy would be governed and construed with the laws of the country where the applicable SNC-Lavalin, Inc. office was located.[46] Because of this provision, the petitioners insisted that the laws of Canada, not of Madagascar or the Philippines, should apply. Then, they finally referred to the ESA. It is apparent that the petitioners were simply attempting to stretch the overseas employment contract of Arriola, by implication, in order that the alleged foreign law would apply. To sustain such argument would allow any foreign employer to improperly invoke a foreign law even if it is not anymore reasonably contemplated by the parties to control the overseas employment. The OFW, who is susceptible by his desire and desperation to work abroad, would blindly sign the labor contract even though it is not clearly established on its face which state law shall apply. Thus, a better rule would be to obligate the foreign employer to expressly declare at the onset of the labor contract that a foreign law shall govern it. In that manner, the OFW would be informed of the applicable law before signing the contract. Further, it was shown that the overseas labor contract was executed by Arriola at his residence in Batangas and it was processed at the POEA on May 26, 2008.[47] Considering that no foreign law was specified in the contract and the same was executed in the Philippines, the doctrine of lex loci celebrationis applies and the Philippine laws shall govern the overseas employment of Arriola. The foreign law invoked is contrary to the Constitution and the Labor Code Granting arguendo that the labor contract expressly stipulated the applicability of Canadian law, still, Arriola's employment cannot be governed by such foreign law because the third requisite is not satisfied. A perusal of the ESA will show that some of its provisions are contrary to the Constitution and the labor laws of the Philippines. First, the ESA does not require any ground for the early termination of employment.[48] Article 54 thereof only provides that no employer should terminate the employment of an employee unless a written notice had been given in advance.[49] Necessarily, the employer can dismiss any employee for any ground it so desired. At its own pleasure, the foreign employer is endowed with the absolute power to end the employment of an employee even on the most whimsical grounds. Second, the ESA allows the employer to dispense with the prior notice of termination to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61749 11/16