Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 Cadalin Vs Poea

    Uploaded by

    Anty Castillo
    31 views2 pages
    On June 6, 1984, 729 Filipino overseas contract workers filed a class suit against their recruitment agency (AIBC) and employer in Bahrain (BRII) over unpaid wages and benefits. They argued their employment contracts should have included the protections of Bahrain's Amiri Decree 23, which provided additional benefits. In 1991, the NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding the claims had passed the statute of limitations. On appeal, the court found that while the Amiri Decree should be considered part of the contracts, Philippine law on limitations applied, not Bahraini law. Under the Civil Code, the workers' claims for unpaid wages were subject to a 10-year statute of limitations, not

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5 cadalin vs poea

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    On June 6, 1984, 729 Filipino overseas contract workers filed a class suit against their recruitment agency (AIBC) and employer in Bahrain (BRII) over unpaid wages and benefits. They argued their employment contracts should have included the protections of Bahrain's Amiri Decree 23, which provided additional benefits. In 1991, the NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding the claims had passed the statute of limitations. On appeal, the court found that while the Amiri Decree should be considered part of the contracts, Philippine law on limitations applied, not Bahraini law. Under the Civil Code, the workers' claims for unpaid wages were subject to a 10-year statute of limitations, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    5 Cadalin Vs Poea

    Uploaded by

    Anty Castillo
    On June 6, 1984, 729 Filipino overseas contract workers filed a class suit against their recruitment agency (AIBC) and employer in Bahrain (BRII) over unpaid wages and benefits. They argued their employment contracts should have included the protections of Bahrain's Amiri Decree 23, which provided additional benefits. In 1991, the NLRC dismissed the complaint, finding the claims had passed the statute of limitations. On appeal, the court found that while the Amiri Decree should be considered part of the contracts, Philippine law on limitations applied, not Bahraini law. Under the Civil Code, the workers' claims for unpaid wages were subject to a 10-year statute of limitations, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    On June 6, 1984, Bienvenido M. Cadalin, Rolando M. Amul and Donato B.

    Evangelista, with 728 other


    overseas contract workers (OCWs) instituted a class suit by filing an "Amended Complaint" with the
    Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for money claims arising from their recruitment
    by AIBC and employment by BRII. The claimants were represented by Atty. Gerardo del Mundo.

    BRII is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Houston, Texas, and is engaged in construction; while
    AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a service contractor to recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino
    workers for overseas employment on behalf of its foreign principals.

    The claimants sought the payment of the unexpired portion of the employment contracts, which was
    terminated prematurely, and secondarily, the payment of the interest of the earnings of the Travel and
    Reserved Fund, interest on all the unpaid benefits; area wage and salary differential pay; fringe benefits;
    refund of SSS and premium not remitted to the SSS; refund of withholding tax not remitted to the BIR;
    penalties for committing prohibited practices; as well as the suspension of the license of AIBC and the
    accreditation of BRII, and the enforcement of the Amiri decree 23, otherwise known as the labor law for
    the private sector that took effect August 16, 1976, should be part of the contract as it is favorable to
    the OCWs.

    In 1991 the NLRC dismissed the complaint for having prescribed.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the over sea’s employment contract of the complainants that worked in Bahrain should
    include the Amiri Decree 23 as part of their contract.

    Whether or not prescription has set in thus bars complainants from enjoying its benefits.

    Held:

    The first issue, NLRC set aside Section 1, Rule 129 of the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence governing the
    pleading and proof of a foreign law and admitted in evidence a simple copy of the Bahrain's Amiri
    Decree No. 23 of 1976. NLRC invoked Article 221 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, vesting on the
    Commission ample discretion to use every, and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
    without regard to the technicalities of law or procedure. NLRC agreed with the POEA Administrator that
    the Amiri Decree No. 23, being more favorable and beneficial to the workers, should form part of the
    overseas employment contract of the complainants.

    The Court determined the issue of prescription period, accordingly to the Amiri Decree No. 23, claims
    arising from out of contract of employment shall prescribed in one year from the date of the contract’s
    expiration.

    As a general rule, foreign procedural law shall not apply in the forum even if the action is based on
    foreign substantive law. The Court finds the application of the Amiri Decree N0 23 on prescription of
    claims is obnoxious, for it contravene public policy on the protection of the rights of workers, the
    applicable law on prescription is the Philippine law. (Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, Sec. 685;
    Salonga, Private International Law, 131 [1979]).
    Having determined that the applicable law on prescription is the Philippine law, the next question is
    whether the prescriptive period governing the filing of the claims is three years, as provided by the
    Labor Code or ten years, as provided by the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    As noted by the Court, Since the claim for pay differentials is primarily anchored on the written contracts
    between the litigants, the ten-year prescriptive period provided by Art. 1144 of the New Civil Code
    should govern.

    The court further explained:

    The three-year prescriptive period fixed in the Eight-Hour Labor Law (CA No. 444 as
    amended) will apply, if the claim for differentials for overtime work is solely based on
    said law, and not on a collective bargaining agreement or any other contract. In the
    instant case, the claim for overtime compensation is not so much because of
    Commonwealth Act No. 444, as amended but because the claim is demandable right of
    the employees, by reason of the above-mentioned collective bargaining agreement.

    Section 7-a of the Eight-Hour Labor Law provides the prescriptive period for filing "actions to enforce
    any cause of action under said law." On the other hand, Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
    provides the prescriptive period for filing "money claims arising from employer-employee relations." The
    claims in the cases at bench all arose from the employer-employee relations, which is broader in scope
    than claims arising from a specific law or from the collective bargaining agreement.

    The contention of the POEA Administrator, that the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of
    the Labor Code of the Philippines applies only to money claims specifically recoverable under said Code,
    does not find support in the plain language of the provision. Neither is the contention of the claimants in
    G.R. Nos. 104911-14 that said Article refers only to claims "arising from the employer's violation of the
    employee's right," as provided by the Labor Code supported by the facial reading of the provision.

    You might also like