postulates that Singapore laws should apply and courts thereat shall have jurisdiction. (pp. 50-69, Rec.). Misjuris In traversing defendant's arguments, plaintiff claimed that: (1) where the items demanded in a complaint are the natural consequences flowing from a breach of an obligation and not labor benefits, the case is intrinsically a civil dispute; (2) the case involves a question that is beyond the field of specialization of labor arbiters; and (3) if the complaint is grounded not on the employee's dismissal per se but on the manner of said dismissal and the consequence thereof, the case falls under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. (pp. 70-73, Rec.) On March 23, 1987, the court a quo denied defendant's motion to dismiss (pp. 82-84, Ibid). The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. (p. 95 ibid) On September 16, 1987, defendant filed its answer reiterating the grounds relied upon in its motion to dismiss and further arguing that plaintiff is barred by laches, waiver, and estoppel from instituting the complaint and that he has no cause of action. (pp. 102-115)"1[1] On April 10, 1991, the trial court handed down its decision in favor of plaintiff. The dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Menandro Laureano and against defendant Singapore Airlines Limited, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amounts of SIN$396,104.00, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the current rate of exchange at the time of payment, as and for unearned compensation with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid; Jjlex SIN$154,742.00, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the current rate of exchange at the time of payment; and the further amounts of P67,500.00 as consequential damages with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid; P1,000,000.00 as and for moral damages; P1,000,000.00 as and for exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 as and for attorney's fees. Costs against defendant. 1[1] Rollo, pp. 30-32.