On September 25, 1981, plaintiff was invited to take a course of A-300 conversion training at Aeroformacion, Toulouse, France at defendant's expense. Having successfully completed and passed the training course, plaintiff was cleared on April 7, 1981 for solo duty as captain of the Airbus A-300 and subsequently appointed as captain of the A-300 fleet commanding an Airbus A-300 in flights over Southeast Asia. (Annexes "D", "E" and "F", pp. 34-38, Rec.). Sometime in 1982, defendant, hit by a recession, initiated cost-cutting measures. Seventeen (17) expatriate captains in the Airbus fleet were found in excess of the defendant's requirement (t.s.n., July 6, 1988. p. 11). Consequently, defendant informed its expatriate pilots including plaintiff of the situation and advised them to take advance leaves. (Exh. "15", p. 466, Rec.). Realizing that the recession would not be for a short time, defendant decided to terminate its excess personnel (t.s.n., July 6, 1988, p. 17). It did not, however, immediately terminate it's A-300 pilots. It reviewed their qualifications for possible promotion to the B-747 fleet. Among the 17 excess Airbus pilots reviewed, twelve were found qualified. Unfortunately, plaintiff was not one of the twelve. Jurissc On October 5, 1982, defendant informed plaintiff of his termination effective November 1, 1982 and that he will be paid three (3) months salary in lieu of three months notice (Annex "I", pp. 41-42, Rec.). Because he could not uproot his family on such short notice, plaintiff requested a three-month notice to afford him time to exhaust all possible avenues for reconsideration and retention. Defendant gave only two (2) months notice and one (1) month salary. (t.s.n., Nov. 12, 1987. p. 25). Aggrieved, plaintiff on June 29, 1983, instituted a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Defendant moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Before said motion was resolved, the complaint was withdrawn. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant case for damages due to illegal termination of contract of services before the court a quo (Complaint, pp. 1-10, Rec.). Again, defendant on February 11, 1987 filed a motion to dismiss alleging inter alia: (1) that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, and (2) that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the instant case. 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