the NLRC in its assailed decision and orders. The Solicitor General prayed that he be excused from filing a comment on behalf of the NLRC[33] On April 30,1996, private respondent Santos filed his comment. [34] On June 26, 1996, the Court granted the manifestation of the Solicitor General and required the NLRC to file its own comment to the petition.[35] On January 7, 1997, the NLRC filed its comment. The petition is meritorious. I. Forum Non-Conveniens The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum. We note that 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 Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here. The employment contract.-- Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment agency of the government.[36] 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. Not Convenient.-- We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the incidents of the case - from the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither are they doing business in the Philippines. Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the Philippines. No power to determine applicable law.-- 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).[38] The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines. Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by writing a letter while he was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in the Peoples Republic of China. No power to determine the facts.-- Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing, Peoples Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the