Cadalin Digest Copy

8/13/2019 Cadalin Digest Copy

1/44

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-104776 December 5, 1994

BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONAO B.EVANGELI!A, "#$ %&e re'% o( 1,767 NAMED-COM)LAINAN!, %&r* "#$ b+%&er A%%or#e+-#-("c%, A%%+. GERARDO A. DEL MUNDO, petitioners,vs.)ILI))INE OVER!EA! EM)LOMEN ADMINI!RAION/!ADMINI!RAOR, NAIONAL LABOR RELAION! COMMI!!ION, BRON ROO INERNAIONAL, INC. AND2OR A!IA INERNAIONAL BUILDER!COR)ORAION, respondents.

G.R. No'. 104911-14 December 5, 1994

BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, E AL., petitioners,vs.ON. NAIONAL LABOR RELAION! COMMI!!ION, BRON ROOINERNAIONAL, INC. "#$2or A!IA INERNAIONAL BUILDER!COR)ORAION, respondents.

G.R. No'. 105039-3 December 5, 1994

A!IA INERNAIONAL BUILDER COR)ORAION "#$ BRON ROOINERNAIONAL, INC., petitioners,vs.NAIONAL LABOR RELAION! COMMI!!ION, BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN,ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONAO B. EVANGELI!A, ROMEO )AAG,RIALINO REE!, IGNACIO DE VERA, !OLOMON B. REE!, O!E M.ABAN, EMIGDIO N. ABARUE, ANONIO ACU)AN, ROMEO ACU)AN,BENAMIN ALEANDRE, IL8REDO D. ALIGADO, MARIN AMI!AD, R.,ROLANDO B. AMUL, AMOR!OLO ANADING, ANONIO . ANGLO,VICENE ARLIA, ERBER AO, !ILVERIO BALAAO, AL8REDO

BALOBO, 8ALCONERO BANAAG, RAMON BARBO!A, 8ELI BARCENA,8ERNANDO BA!, MARIO BAACLAN, ROBERO !. BAICA, ENRICOBELEN, ARI!EO BICOL, LARR C. BICOL, )ERONILLO BI!COCO,8ELI M. BOBIER, DIONI!IO BOBONGO, BAANI !. BRACAMANE,)ABLIO BU!ILLO, GUILLERMO CABEA!, BIENVENIDO CADALIN,RODOL8O CAGAAN, AMANE CAILAO, IRENEO CANDOR, O!ECA!ILLO, MANUEL CA!ILLO, REMAR CA!ROERE!, RENALDOCAA!, ROMEO CECILIO, EODULO CREU!, BAANI DARI, RICARDO


2/44

DARI, ERNE!O . DELA CRU, 8RANCI!CO DE GUMAN, ONO8RE DERAMA, IGNACIO DE VERA, MODE!O DION, RENALDO DION,ANONIO !. DOMINGUE, GILBER EBRADA, RICARDO EBRADA,ANONIO EERCIO, R., EDUARE ERIDAO, ELADIO E!COOO, ONE!GUERRA, EDUARDO E!)IRIU, ERNE!O E!)IRIU, RODOL8O

E!)IRIU, NE!OR M. E!EVA, BENAMIN E!RADA, VALERIOEVANGELI!A, OLIGARIO 8RANCI!CO, E!U! GABAAN, ROLANDOGARCIA, ANGEL GUDA, )ACIO ERNANDE, ANONIO ILARIO, ENRL. ACOB, ONE!O ARDINIANO, ANONIO OC!ON, GERARDOLAC!AMANA, E8REN U. LIRIO LOREO LONOC, I!RAEL LORENO,ALEANDRO LORINO, O!E MABALA, ERMIE MARANAN, LEOVIGILDOMARCIAL, NOEL MARINE, DANE MAREO, LUCIANO MELENDE,RENAO MELO, 8RANCI! MEDIODIA, O!E C. MILANE!, RAMUNDO C.MILA, CRE!ENCIANO MIRANDA, ILDE8ON!O C. MOLINA, ARMANDO B.MONDEAR RE!URRECCION D. NAARENO, UAN OLINDO, 8RANCI!COR. OLIVARE!, )EDRO ORBI!A, R., RICARDO ORDONE, ERNIE

)ANCO, O!E )ANCO, GORGONIO ). )ARALA, MODE!O )IN)IN,UANIO )AREA, ROMEO I. )AAG, 8RANCI!CO )IN)IN, LEONARDO)OBLEE, AIME )OLLO!, DOMINGO )ONDALI!, EUGENIO RAMIRE,LUCIEN M. RE!)ALL, GAUDENCIO REANAN, R., OMA! B. REENER,ALVIN C. REE!, RIALINO REE!, !OLOMON B. REE!, VIRGILIO G.RICAA, RODELIO RIEA, R., BENIO RIVERA, R., BERNARDO .ROBILLO!, )ABLO A. ROBLE!, O!E ROBLEA, UIRINO RONUILLO,AVELINO M. ROUE, MENANDRO L. !ABINO, )EDRO !ALGAAR,EDGARDO !ALONGA, NUMERIANO !AN MAEO, 8ELIARDO DE LO!!ANO!, R., GABRIEL !ANO!, UANIO !ANO!, )AUIO !OLANE,CONRADO A. !OLI!, R., RODOL8O !ULAN, I!AIA! ALACAC,ILLIAM ARUC, MENANDRO EM)RO!A, BIENVENIDO !. OLENINO,BENEDICO ORRE!, MAIMIANO ORRE!, 8RANCI!CO G. RIA!,!ERGIO A. UR!OLINO, ROGELIO VALDE, LEGORIO E. VERGARA,DEL8IN VICORIA, GILBER VICORIA, ERNANE VICORIANO,8RANCI!CO VILLA8LORE!, DOMINGO VILLAERMO!A, ROLANDOVILLALOBO!, ANONIO VILLAU, DANILO VILLANUEVA, ROGELIOVILLANUEVA, ANGEL VILLARBA, UANIO VILLARINO, 8RANCI!COARA, ROGELIO AALAGO!, NICANOR B. ABAD, ANDRE! ABANE!,RENALDO ABANE!, EDUARDO ABANE, O!E ABARRO, O!E8INOABARRO, CEL!O !. ABELANIO, ERMINIO ABELLA, MIGUEL ABE!ANO,RODRIGO G. ABUBO, O!E B. ABU!AN, DANE ACERE!, RENALDO !.ACOIDO, LEOILIN ACA, EUGENIO C. ACUEA, EDUARDO ACU)AN,RENALDO ACU)AN, !OLANO ACU)AN, MANUEL ). ADANA,8LORENINO R. AGNE, UIERIO R. AGUDO, MANUEL ). AGUINALDO,DANE AGUIRRE, ERMINIO AGUIRRE, GONALO ALBERO, R.,CONRADO ALCANARA, LAMBERO . ALCANARA, MARIANIO .ALCANARA, BENCIO ALDOVER, EULALIO V. ALEANDRO, BENAMINALEANDRO, EDUARDO L. ALEANDRO, MAIMINO ALEANDRO,ALBERO ALMENAR, ARNALDO ALONO, AMADO ALORIA, CAMILO


3/44

ALVARE, MANUEL C. ALVARE, BENAMIN R. AMBROCIO, CARLO!AMORE!, BERNARD ). ANCEA, IMOEO O. ANCEA, EO8RE ANI,ELINO ). ANILLON, ARMANDRO B. ANI)ONO, LARR . ANONIO,ANONIO A)ILADO, ARURO ). A)ILADO, 8RANCI!CO A)OLINARIO,BAROLOME M. AUINO, I!IDRO AUINO, )A!OR AUINO, RO!ENDO

M. AUINO, ROBERO ARANGORIN, BENAMIN O. ARAEA, ARURO V.ARAULLO, )RUDENCIO ARAULLO, ALEANDER ARCAIRA, 8RANCI!COARCIAGA, O!E AREVALO, UANO AREVALO, RAMON AREVALO,RODOL8O AREVALO, EULALIO ARGUELLE!, IL8REDO ). ARICA, O!EM. ADE!ILLO, ANONIO A!UNCION, AREMIO M. A!UNCION, EDGARDOA!UNCION, RE M. A!UNCION, VICENE AURELIO, ANGEL AU!RIA,RICARDO ). AVERILLA, R., VIRGILIO AVILA, BAROLOME AALAN,AL8REDO BABILONIA, 8ELIMON BACAL, O!E L. BACANI, ROMULO R.BALBIERAN, VICENE BALBIERAN, RODOL8O BALIBI, EODORO .BALOBO, DANILO O. BARBA, BERNARDO BARRO, UAN A. BA!ILAN,CE8ERINO BAII!, VIVENCIO C. BAUAN, GAUDENCIO !. BAUI!A,

LEONARDO BAUI!A, O!E D. BAUI!A, RO!ICO BAUI!A,RU)ERO B. BAUI!A, EODORO !. BAUI!A, VIRGILIO BAUI!A,E!U! R. BAA, INIE8REDO BAACAL, INIE8REDO BEBI, BEN G.BELIR, ERIC B. BELRAN, EMELIANO BENALE!, R., RAUL BENIE,)ER8ECO BEN!AN, IRENEO BERGONIO, I!ABELO BERMUDE,ROLANDO I. BERMUDE, DANILO BERON, BENAMIN BER!AMIN,ANGELIO BICOL, AN!ELMO BICOL, CELE!INO BICOL, R., 8RANCI!COBICOL, ROGELIO BICOL, ROMULO L. BICOL, ROGELIO BILLIONE!,EO8ILO N. BIO, 8ERNANDO BLANCO, AUGU!O BONDOC, DOMINGOBONDOC, )E)E !. BOOC, AME! R. BORA, IL8REDO BRACERO!,ANGELE! C. BRECINO, EURECLDON G. BRIONE!, AMADO BRUGE,)ABLIO BUDILLO, ARCIMEDE! BUENAVENURA, BA!ILIOBUENAVENURA, GUILLERMO BUENCON!EO, ALEANDERBU!AMANE, VIRGILIO BUIONG, R., ONE!O ). CABALLA, DEL8INCABALLERO, BENEDICO CABANIGAN, MOI!E! CABAA, ERMANELICABRERA, )EDRO CAGAAN, OVEN C. CAGAA, ROGELIO L.CALAGO!, RENALDO V. CALDEON, O!CAR C. CALDERON, NE!OR D.CALLEA, RENAO R. CALMA, NEL!ON . CAMACO, !ANO! .CAMACO, ROBERO CAMANA, 8LORANE C. CAMANAG EDGARDO M.CANDA, !EVERINO CANO!, E)I8ANIO A. CA)ON)ON, ELIA! D.CARILLO, R., ARMANDO CARREON, MENANDRO M. CA!A:EDA,BENIGNO A. CA!ILLO, CORNELIO L. CA!ILLO, O!E) B. CA!ILLO,AN!ELMO CA!ILLO, OAUIN CA!ILLO, )ABLO L. CA!ILLO, ROMEO). CA!ILLO, !E!INANDO CAIBOG, DANILO CA!RO, )RUDENCIO A.CA!RO, RAMO CA!RO, R., ROMEO A. DE CA!RO, AIME B. CALI,DURANA D. CE8ERINO, RODOL8O B. CELI!, ERMINIGILDO CEREO,VICORIANO CELE!INO, BENAMIN CAN, ANONIO C. CUA,VIVENCIO B. CIABAL, RODRIGO CLAREE, AUGU!O COLOMA, URIANOCONCE)CION, ERE!IO CON!ANINO, ARMANDO CORALE!, RENAOC. CORCUERA, A)OLINAR CORONADO, ABELARDO CORONEL, 8ELI


4/44

CORONEL, R., LEONARDO COR)U, E!U! M. CORRALE!, CE!ARCOREM)RAO, 8RANCI!CO O. CORVERA, 8RANCI!CO CO!ALE!, !R.,CELEDONIO CREDIO, ALBERO A. CREU!, ANACLEO V. CRU,DOMINGO DELA CRU, AMELIANO DELA CRU, R., )ANCIO CRU,RENALDO B. DELA CRU, ROBERO ). CRU, EODORO !. CRU,

O!IMO DELA CRU, DIONI!IO A. CUARE!MA, 8ELIMON CUION, 8ERMINDAGONDON, RICARD DAGUIN!IN, CRI!ANO A. DAA, NICA!IODANINGUINOO, O!E DAOON, EDUARDO DAVID, ENRICO . DAVID,8AVIO DAVID, VICORIANO !. DAVID, EDGARDO N. DAACA), O!ELIO. DELO!O, CELERINO DE GUMAN, ROMULO DE GUMAN, LIBERAODE GUMAN, O!E DE LEON, O!ELIO L. DE LUMBAN, NA)OLEON !.DE LUNA, RICARDO DE RAMA, GENERO!O DEL RO!ARIO, ALBERODELA CRU, O!E DELA CRU, LEONARDO DELO! REE!, ERNE!O 8.DIAA, EDUARDO A. DIA, 8ELI DIA, MELCOR DIA, NICANOR !.DIA, GERARDO C. DIGA, CLEMENE DIMAULAC, ROLANDO DIONI!IO,)ILI)) G. DI!MAA, BENAMIN DOCOLERO, ALBERO !O.

DOMINGO, BENAMIN E. DOA, BENAMIN DU)A, DANILO C. DURAN,GREGORIO D. DURAN, RENAO A. EDUARE, GODO8REDO E. EI!MA,ARDON B. ELLO, UBED B. ELLO, O!E8INO ENANO, RENALDOENCARNACION, EDGARDO ENGUANCIO, ELIA! EUI)ANO, 8ELIARDOE!CARMO!A, MIGUEL E!CARMO!A, ARMANDO E!COBAR, ROMEO .E!CUO!, ANGELIO E!)IRIU, EDUARDO !. E!)IRIU, RENALDOE!)IRIU, ROLANDO E!)IRIU, ULIAN E!)REGANE, IGMIDIOE!ANI!LAO, ERNE!O M. E!EBAN, MELANIO R. E!RO, ERNE!O M.E!EVA, CONRADO E!UAR, CLDE E!UE, ELI!EO 8AARDO,)OR8IRIO 8ALUEA, IL8REDO ). 8AU!INO, EMILIO E. 8ERNANDE,AREMIO 8ERRER, MI!AEL M. 8IGURACION, ARMANDO 8. 8LORE!,BENAMIN 8LORE!, EDGARDO C. 8LORE!, BUENAVENURA8RANCI!CO, MANUEL !. 8RANCI!CO, ROLANDO 8RANCI!CO,VALERIANO 8RANCI!CO, RODOL8O GABAAN, E!MERALDO GAUAN,CE!AR C. GALANG, !ANIAGO N. GALO!O, GABRIEL GAMBOA,BERNARDO GANDAMON, UAN GANON, ANDRE! GARCIA, R.,ARMANDO M. GARCIA, EUGENIO GARCIA, MARCELO L. GARCIA,)ARICIO L. GARCIA, R., )ONCIANO G. GARCIA, )ONCIANO G. GARCIA,R., RA8AEL ). GARCIA, ROBERO !. GARCIA, O!IA! G. GARO8IL,RAMUNDO C. GARON, ROLANDO G. GAELA, AVELINO GAEA,RAMUNDO GERON, )LACIDO GONALE!, RU)ERO . GONALE!,ROGELIO D. GUANIO, MARIN V. GUERRERO, R., ALEI! GUNO,RICARDO L. GUNO, 8RANCI!CO GU)I, DENNI! . GUIERRE, IGNACIOB. GUIERRE, ANGELIO DE GUMAN, R., CE!AR . ABANA, RAUL G.ERNANDE, RENALDO ERNANDE, OVENIANO D. ILADO, U!OILA)O, RO!IO INAON, 8ELICI!IMO INGADA, EDUARDO I)OLIO,RAUL L. IGNACIO, MANUEL L. ILAGAN, RENAO L. ILAGAN, CONRADO A.IN!IONG, GRACIANO G. I!LA, ARNEL L. ACOB, O!CAR . A)IENGA,CIRILO ICBAN, MAIMIANO ONRADE!, GENERO!O IGNACIO, 8ELI)EILAGAN, E)EDIO N. ACOB, MARIO A!MIN, BIENVENIDO AVIER,


5/44

ROMEO M. AVIER, )RIMO DE E!U!, RENALDO DE E!U!, CARLO! A.IMENE, DANILO E. IMENE, )EDRO C. OAUIN, 8ELI)E . OC!ON,8ELINO M. OC!ON, )EDRO N. OC!ON, VALENINO !. OC!ON, )EDROB. OLOA, E!EBAN ). O!E, R., RAUL O!E, RICARDO !AN O!E,GERRUDO ;ABIGING, EDUARDO !. ;OLIMLIM, !R., LAURO . LABA,

EMMANUEL C. LABELLA, EDGARDO B. LACERONA, O!E B. LAC!ON,MARIO . LADINE!, RU8INO LAGAC, RODRIGO LAGANA)AN, E8REN M.LAMADRID, GUADENCIO LAANAN, VIRGILIO LAAAN, EMILIANOLAOA, ENCE!LAO LAUREL, AL8REDO LAAMANA, DANIEL R.LAARO, ANONIO C. LEANO, ARURO !. LEGA!)I, BENIO DE LEMO!,R., )EDRO G. DE LEON, MANOLIO C. LILOC, GERARDO LIMUACO,ERNE!O !. LI!ING, RENAO LI!ING, IL8REDO !. LI!ING, CRI!)ULOLONOC, )EDRO M. LO)ERA, ROGELIO LO)ERA, CARLIO M. LO)E,CLOD LO)E, GARLIO LO)E, GEORGE 8. LO)E, VIRGILIO M. LO)E,BERNARDIO G. LOREA, DOMINGO B. LORICO, DOMINGO LOOLA,DANE LUAGE, ANONIO M. LUALAI, EMMANUEL LUALAI, R.,

LEONIDE C. LUALAI, !EBA!IAN LUALAI, 8RANCI!CO LUBA,ARMANDO LUCERO, O!ELIO L. DE LUMBAN, OMA! VICENE O.LUNA, NOLI MACALADLAD, AL8REDO MACALINO, RICARDO MACALINO,ARURO V. MACARAIG, ERNE!O V. MACARAIG, RODOL8O V.MACARAIG, BENAMIN MACAANGA, ERMOGENE! MACAANGA,RODEL MACAANGA, ROMULO MACAANGA, O!IA! .MADLANGBAAN, NICOLA! ). MADRID, EDELBERO G. MAGA, E8RENC. MAGBANUA, BENAMIN MAGBUA, AL8REDO C. MAGCALENG,ANONIO MAGNAE, AL8ON!O MAG)ANA, RICARDO C. MAG)ANA,!IMEON M. MAG)ANA, ARMANDO M. MAG!INO, MACARIO !.MAG!INO, ANONIO MAGIBA, VICOR V. MAGIBA, GERONIMOMAILUM, MANUEL MALONO, RICARDO MAMADI!, RODOL8O MANA,BERNARDO A. MANALILI, MANUEL MANALILI, ANGELO MANALO,AGUILE! L. MANALO, LEO)OLDO MANGAA!, BAANI MANIGBA!,ROLANDO C. MANIMIM, DANIEL MANON!ON, ERNE!O 8. MANUEL,EDUARDO MANANO, RICARDO N. MA)A, RAMON MA)ILE, ROBERO C.MARANA, NEME!IO MARA!IGAN, ENCE!LAO MARA!IGAN, LEONARDOMARCELO, ENR 8. MARIANO, OEL MARIDABLE, !ANO! E. MARINO,NARCI!O A. MARUE, RICARDO MARINE, DIEGO MA!ICAM)O,AURELIO MAABERDE, RENAO MAILLA, VICORIANO MAILLA,VIRGILIO MEDEL, LOLIO M. MELECIO, BENIGNO MELENDE, RENER .MEMIE, RENALDO 8. MEMIE, RODEL MEMIE, AVELINO MENDOA,R., CLARO MENDOA, IMOEO MENDOA, GREGORIO MERCADO,ERNANI DELA MERCED, RICARDO MERCENA, NEME!IO MERELLO,RODEL MEMIE, GA!)AR MINIMO, BENAMIN MIRANDA, 8ELIBERO D.MI!A, CLAUDIO A. MODE!O, R., O!CAR MONDEDO, GENERO!OMONON, RENAO MORADA, RICARDO MORADA, RODOL8O MORADA,ROLANDO M. MORALE!, 8EDERICO M. MORENO, VICORINO A. MOREL,R., E!)IRIU A. MUNO, IGNACIO MUNO, ILDE8ON!O MUNO,ROGELIO MUNO, ERNE!O NA)ALAN, MARCELO A. NARCIO,


6/44

RENALDO NAALIA, 8ERNANDO C. NAVAREE, )ACI8ICO D.NAVARRO, 8LORANE NAARENO, RIAL B. NAARIO, O!UE NEGRIE,AL8REDO NE)UMUCENO, ERBER G. NG, 8LORENCIO NICOLA!,ERNE!O C. NINON, AVELINO NUUI, NEME!IO D. OBA, DANILOOCAM)O, EDGARDO OCAM)O, RODRIGO E. OCAM)O, ANONIO B.

OCCIANO, RENALDO ). OC!ON, BENAMIN ODE!A, ANGEL OLA!O,8RANCI!CO OLIGARIO, O!IMO OLIMBO, BENAMIN V. ORALLO, ROMEO!. ORIGINE!, DANILO R. ORANE, IL8REDO O!IA!, VIRGILIO )A-A,DAVID )AALAN, E!U! N. )ACECO, AL8ON!O L. )ADILLA, DANILO)AG!ANAN, NUMERIANO )AG!I!IAN, RICARDO . )AGUIO, EMILIO)A;INGAN, LEANDRO )ALABRICA, UINCIANO )ALO, O!E )AMAIAN,GONALO )AN, )OR8IRIO )AN, BIENVENIDO )ANGAN, ERNE!O)ANGAN, 8RANCI!CO V. )A!IA, EDILBERO )A!IMIO, R., O!E V.)A!ION, ANGELIO M. )ENA, DIONI!IO )ENDRA!, ERMINIO )ERALA,RENALDO M. )ERALA, ANONIO )ERE, ANOLIANO E. )ERE, UAN)ERE, LEON )ERE, ROMEO E. )ERE, ROMULO )ERE, ILLIAM

)ERE, 8ERNANDO G. )ERINO, 8LORENINO DEL )ILAR, DELMAR 8.)INEDA, !ALVADOR )INEDA, ELIALDE )IN)IN, IL8REDO )IN)IN,ARURO )OBLEE, DOMINADOR R. )RIELA, BUENAVENURA)RUDENE, CARMELIO )RUDENE, DANE )UEO, RENALDO .)UEO, RODOL8O O. )ULIDO, ALEANDRO )UNIO, 8EDERICO UIMAN,AL8REDO L. UINO, ROMEO UINO!, EDUARDO . RACABO,RICARDO C. DE RAMA, RICARDO L. DE RAMA, ROLANDO DE RAMA,8ERNANDO A. RAMIRE, LIO !. RAMIRE, RICARDO G. RAMIRE,RODOL8O V. RAMIRE, ALBERO RAMO!, AN!ELMO C. RAMO!, OBIA!RAMO!, ILLAR8REDO RAMUNDO, RENALDO RAUEDAN, MANUEL8. RAVELA!, IL8REDO D. RAMUNDO, ERNE!O E. RECOLA!O,ALBERO REDAA, ARUR REU!O, ORIBIO M. RELLAMA, AIMERELLO!A, EUGENIO A. REMOUILLO, GERARDO RENOA, REDENORC. RE, AL8REDO !. REE!, AMABLE !. REE!, BENEDICO R. REE!,GREGORIO B. REE!, O!E A. REE!, O!E C. REE!, ROMULO M.REE!, !ERGIO REE!, ERNE!O 8. RICO, 8ERNANDO M. RICO,EMMANUEL RIEA, RICARDO RIEA, LEO B. ROBLE!, RUBEN ROBLE!,RODOL8O ROBLEA, RODRIGO ROBLEA, EDUARDO ROCABO,ANONIO R. RODRIGUE, BERNARDO RODRIGUE, ELIGIO RODRIGUE,ALMONE ROMEO, ELIA! RONUILLO, ELI!E RONUILLO, LUI! VAL B.RONUILLO, RENO!O ). RONUILLO, RODOL8O RONUILLO, ANGELRO!ALE!, RAMON RO!ALE!, ALBERO DEL RO!ARIO, GENERO!O DELRO!ARIO, EODORICO DEL RO!ARIO, VIRGILIO L. RO!ARIO, CARLIO!ALVADOR, O!E !AM)ARADA, ERNE!O !AN )EDRO, ADRIANO V.!ANCA, GERONIMO M. !ANCA, AREMIO B. !ANCE, NICA!IO!ANCE, A)OLONIO ). !ANIAGO, O!ELIO !. !ANIAGO, !ERGIO!ANIAGO, EDILBERO C. !ANO!, E8REN !. !ANO!, RENAO D.!ANO!, MIGUEL !A)UO, ALE !. !ERUINA, DOMINADOR ). !ERRA,ROMEO !IDRO, AMADO M. !ILANG, 8AU!INO D. !ILANG, RODOL8O B.DE !ILO!, ANICEO G. !ILVA, EDGARDO M. !ILVA, ROLANDO C.


7/44

!ILVERO, ARUR B. !IMBAON, DOMINGO !OLANO, O!ELIO C.!OLANE, CARLIO !OLI!, CONRADO !OLI!, III, EDGARDO !OLI!,ERNE!O !OLI!, I!AGANI M. !OLI!, EDUARDO L. !OO, ERNE!O G.!A. MARIA, VICENE G. !ELLA, 8ELIMON !U)ANG, )EERANGUINOO, MAIMINO ALIB!AO, 8ELICI!MO ). ALU!I;, 8ERMIN

ARUC, R., LEV !. EM)LO, RODOL8O !. IAM!ON, LEONILO I)O!O,ARNEL OLENINO, MARIO M. OLENINO, 8ELI)E ORRALBA, OVIOV. ORRE!, LEONARDO DE ORRE!, GAVINO U. UAON, AUGU!O B.UNGUIA, 8RANCI!CO UMALI, !IM)LICIO UNIDA, IL8REDO V.UNALAN, ANONIO VALDERAMA, RAMON VALDERAMA, NILOVALENCIANO, EDGARDO C. VA!UE, EL)IDIO VELA!UE, NE!ORDE VERA, IL8REDO D. VERA, BIENVENIDO VERGARA, AL8REDOVERGARA, RAMON R. VERO!A, 8ELICIO ). VICMUNDO, AL8REDOVICORIANO, EO8ILO ). VIDALLO, !ABINO N. VIERNE, E!U! . VILLA,OVEN VILLABLANCO, EDGARDO G. VILLA8LORE!, CE8ERINOVILLAGERA, ALE VILLAERMOA, DANILO A. VILLANUEVA, ELIO

VILLANUEVA, LEONARDO M. VILLANUEVA, MANUEL R. VILLANUEVA,NE)ALI VILLAR, O!E V. VILLAREAL, 8ELICI!IMO VILLARINO, RA8AELVILLAROMAN, CARLO! VILLENA, 8ERDINAND VIVO, ROBERO ABU,VICENE NGENE, AND ORO C. UNIGA, respondents.

Gerardo A. Del Mundo and Associates for petitioners.

Romulo, Mabanta, Sayoc, Buenaventura, De los Angeles Law ffices forBR!!"A!B#.

$lorante M. De #astro for private respondents in %&'&()*+(.

UIA!ON, J.:

-e petition in G.R. o. %&/001, entitled 2Bienvenido M. #adalin, et. al. v.3-ilippine verseas 4mployment Administration5s Administrator, et. al.,2 wasfiled under Rule 1' of t-e Revised Rules of #ourt6

7%8 to modify t-e Resolution dated September (, %))% of t-e ational LaborRelations #ommission 7LR#8 in 34A #ases os.L*9/*&1*''', L*9'*%&*000, L*9'*%&*00) and L*91*&'*/1&: 7(8 to render a new

decision6 7i8 declaring private respondents as in default: 7ii8 declaring t-e saidlabor cases as a class suit: 7iii8 ordering Asia !nternational Builders #orporation7A!B#8 and Brown and Root !nternational !nc. 7BR!!8 to pay t-e claims of t-e%,010 claimants in said labor cases: 7iv8 declaring Atty. $lorante M. de #astroguilty of forum*s-opping: and 7v8 dismissing 34A #ase o. L*91*&'*/1&: and

7+8 to reverse t-e Resolution dated Marc- (/, %))( of LR#, denying t-e motionfor reconsideration of its Resolution dated September (, %))% 7Rollo, pp. 9*(998.


8/44


9/44

n s8 instituted a class suit by filing an 2Amended #omplaint2 wit- t-e3-ilippine verseas 4mployment Administration 734A8 for money claimsarising from t-eir recruitment by A!B# and employment by BR!! 734A #ase o.

L*9/*&1*'''8. -e claimants were represented by Atty. Gerardo del Mundo.

BR!! is a foreign corporation wit- -ead?uarters in ;ouston, e@as, and isengaged in construction: w-ile A!B# is a domestic corporation licensed as aservice contractor to recruit, mobilie and deploy $ilipino wor=ers for overseasemployment on be-alf of its foreign principals.

-e amended complaint principally soug-t t-e payment of t-e une@pired portionof t-e employment contracts, w-ic- was terminated prematurely, andsecondarily, t-e payment of t-e interest of t-e earnings of t-e ravel andReserved $und, interest on all t-e unpaid benefits: area wage and salary

differential pay: fringe benefits: refund of SSS and premium not remitted to t-eSSS: refund of wit--olding ta@ not remitted to t-e B!R: penalties for committingpro-ibited practices: as well as t-e suspension of t-e license of A!B# and t-eaccreditation of BR!! 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %+*%/8.

At t-e -earing on


10/44

papers, after w-ic- t-e case s-ould be deemed submitted for decision. n t-esame day, Atty. $lorante de #astro filed anot-er complaint for t-e same moneyclaims and benefits in be-alf of several claimants, some of w-om were alsoclaimants in 34A #ase o. L*9/*&1*''' 734A #ase o. 9'*%&*00)8.

n ctober %), %)9/, claimants filed t-eir 2#ompliance2 wit- t-e rder datedctober (, %)9/ and an 2Crgent Manifestation,2 praying t-at t-e 34A direct t-eparties to submit simultaneously t-eir position papers after w-ic- t-e case wouldbe deemed submitted for decision. n t-e same day, A!B# as=ed for time to fileits comment on t-e 2#ompliance2 and 2Crgent Manifestation2 of claimants. november 1, %)9/, it filed a second motion for e@tension of time to file t-ecomment.

n ovember 9, %)9/, t-e 34A Administrator informed A!B# t-at its motion fore@tension of time was granted.

n ovember %/, %)9/, claimants filed an opposition to t-e motions fore@tension of time and as=ed t-at A!B# and BR!! be declared in default for failureto file t-eir answers.

n ovember (&, %)9/, A!B# and BR!! filed a 2#omment2 praying, among ot-erreliefs, t-at claimants s-ould be ordered to amend t-eir complaint.

n December (0, %)9/, t-e 34A Administrator issued an order directing A!B#and BR!! to file t-eir answers wit-in ten days from receipt of t-e order.

n $ebruary (0, %)9', A!B# and BR!! appealed to LR# see=ing t-e reversal of

t-e said order of t-e 34A Administrator. #laimants opposed t-e appeal,claiming t-at it was dilatory and praying t-at A!B# and BR!! be declared indefault.

n April (, %)9', t-e original claimants filed an 2Amended #omplaint and"or3osition 3aper2 dated Marc- (/, %)9', adding new demands6 namely, t-epayment of overtime pay, e@tra nig-t wor= pay, annual leave differential pay,leave indemnity pay, retirement and savings benefits and t-eir s-are offorfeitures 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %/*%18. n April %', %)9', t-e 34A

Administrator directed A!B# to file its answer to t-e amended complaint 7G.R.o. %&/001, Rollo, p. (&8.

n May (9, %)9', claimants filed an 2Crgent Motion for Summary


11/44

n


12/44

A!B# also filed a petition in t-e Supreme #ourt 7G.R. o. 09/9)8, ?uestioning t-erder dated September /, %)9' of t-e 34A Administrator. Said order re?uiredBR!! and A!B# to answer t-e amended complaint in 34A #ase o. L*9/*&1*'''. !n a resolution dated ovember ), %)90, we dismissed t-e petition byinforming A!B# t-at all its tec-nical obections may properly be resolved in t-e

-earings before t-e 34A.

#omplaints were also filed before t-e mbudsman. -e first was filed onSeptember ((, %)99 by claimant ;ermie Arguelles and %9 co*claimants againstt-e 34A Administrator and several LR# #ommissioners. -e mbudsmanmerely referred t-e complaint to t-e Secretary of Labor and 4mployment wit- are?uest for t-e early disposition of 34A #ase o. L*9/*&1*'''. -e secondwas filed on April (9, %)9) by claimants 4migdio 3. Bautista and Rolando R.Lobeta c-arging A!B# and BR!! for violation of labor and social legislations. -et-ird was filed by


13/44

n


14/44


15/44

Before t-is #ourt, t-e claimants represented by Atty. De #astro and A!B# andBR!! -ave submitted, from time to time, compromise agreements for our approvaland ointly moved for t-e dismissal of t-eir respective petitions insofar as t-eclaimants*parties to t-e compromise agreements were concerned 7See Anne@ Afor list of claimants w-o signed ?uitclaims8.

-us t-e following manifestations t-at t-e parties -ad arrived at a compromiseagreement and t-e corresponding motions for t-e approval of t-e agreementswere filed by t-e parties and approved by t-e #ourt6

%8


16/44

%%8 or=ing ;ours 3er >ee= 6EEEEEEEEE7'8 Basic >or=ing ;ours 3er Mont- 6EEEEEEEEE718 Basic ;ourly Rate 6EEEEEEEEE708 vertime Rate 3er ;our 6EEEEEEEEE


17/44

798 3roected 3eriod of Service7Subect to #7%8 of t-is IsicJ8 6EEEEEEEEEMont-s and"orRK AD #M34SA!

a8 -e 4mployee is employed at t-e -ourly rate and overtime rate as set out in3art B of t-is Document.

b8 -e -ours of wor= s-all be t-ose set fort- by t-e 4mployer, and 4mployermay, at -is sole option, c-ange or adust suc- -ours as maybe deemednecessary from time to time.

/. 4RM!A!

a8 otwit-standing any ot-er terms and conditions of t-is agreement, t-e4mployer may, at -is sole discretion, terminate employee5s service wit- cause,under t-is agreement at any time. !f t-e 4mployer terminates t-e services of t-e4mployee under t-is Agreement because of t-e completion or termination, orsuspension of t-e wor= on w-ic- t-e 4mployee5s services were being utilied, orbecause of a reduction in force due to a decrease in scope of suc- wor=, or byc-ange in t-e type of construction of suc- wor=. -e 4mployer will beresponsible for -is return transportation to -is country of origin. ormally on t-emost e@peditious air route, economy class accommodation.

@@@ @@@ @@@

%&. A#A!"S!#K L4A4 B44$!S

a8 After one 7%8 year of continuous service and"or satisfactory completion ofcontract, employee s-all be entitled to %(*days vacation leave wit- pay. -iss-all be computed at t-e basic wage rate. $ractions of a year5s service will becomputed on apro-rata basis.

b8 Sic= leave of %'*days s-all be granted to t-e employee for every year ofservice for non*wor= connected inuries or illness. !f t-e employee failed to availof suc- leave benefits, t-e same s-all be forfeited at t-e end of t-e year in w-ic-said sic= leave is granted.

%%. BCS

A bonus of (& 7for offs-ore wor=8 of gross income will be accrued and payableonly upon satisfactory completion of t-is contract.

%(. $$DA 3A

-e sevent- day of t-e wee= s-all be observed as a day of rest wit- 9 -oursregular pay. !f wor= is performed on t-is day, all -ours wor= s-all be paid at t-epremium rate. ;owever, t-is offday pay provision is applicable only w-en t-elaws of t-e ;ost #ountry re?uire payments for rest day.


18/44

!n t-e State of Ba-rain, w-ere some of t-e individual complainants weredeployed, ;is Maesty !sa Bin Salman Al Kaifa, Amir of Ba-rain, issued -is AmiriDecree o. (+ on


19/44

All t-e individual complainants*appellants -ave already beenrepatriated to t-e 3-ilippines at t-e time of t-e filing of t-esecases 7R.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. ')*1'8.

!

-e issues raised before and resolved by t-e LR# were6

+irst6 E >-et-er or not complainants are entitled to t-e benefits provided byAmiri Decree o. (+ of Ba-rain:

7a8 >-et-er or not t-e complainants w-o -ave wor=ed in Ba-rainare entitled to t-e above*mentioned benefits.

7b8 >-et-er or not Art. // of t-e same Decree 7allegedlyprescribing a more favorable treatment of alien employees8 barscomplainants from enoying its benefits.

,econd6 E Assuming t-at Amiri Decree o. (+ of Ba-rain is applicable in t-esecases, w-et-er or not complainants5 claim for t-e benefits provided t-erein -aveprescribed.

)hird6 E >-et-er or not t-e instant cases ?ualify as a class suit.

+ourth6 E >-et-er or not t-e proceedings conducted by t-e 34A, as well ast-e decision t-at is t-e subect of t-ese appeals, conformed wit- t-ere?uirements of due process:

7a8 >-et-er or not t-e respondent*appellant was denied its rig-tto due process:

7b8 >-et-er or not t-e admission of evidence by t-e 34A aftert-ese cases were submitted for decision was valid:

7c8 >-et-er or not t-e 34A ac?uired urisdiction over Brown Root !nternational, !nc.:

7d8 >-et-er or not t-e udgment awards are supported bysubstantial evidence:

7e8 >-et-er or not t-e awards based on t-e averages andformula presented by t-e complainants*appellants are supportedby substantial evidence:

7f8 >-et-er or not t-e 34A awarded sums beyond w-at t-ecomplainants*appellants prayed for: and, if so, w-et-er or nott-ese awards are valid.

+ifth6 E >-et-er or not t-e 34A erred in -olding respondents A!B# and Brown Root ointly are severally liable for t-e udgment awards despite t-e allegedfinding t-at t-e former was t-e employer of t-e complainants:


20/44


21/44

Anent t-e first issue, LR# set aside Section %, Rule %() of t-e %)9) RevisedRules on 4vidence governing t-e pleading and proof of a foreign law andadmitted in evidence a simple copy of t-e Ba-rain5s Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)017Labour Law for t-e 3rivate Sector8. LR# invo=ed Article ((% of t-e Labor #odeof t-e 3-ilippines, vesting on t-e #ommission ample discretion to use every and

all reasonable means to ascertain t-e facts in eac- case wit-out regard to t-etec-nicalities of law or procedure. LR# agreed wit- t-e 34A Administratort-at t-e Amiri Decree o. (+, being more favorable and beneficial to t-e wor=ers,s-ould form part of t-e overseas employment contract of t-e complainants.

LR#, -owever, -eld t-at t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ applied only to t-e claimants,w-o wor=ed in Ba-rain, and set aside awards of t-e 34A Administrator in favorof t-e claimants, w-o wor=ed elsew-ere.

n t-e second issue, LR# ruled t-at t-e prescriptive period for t-e filing of t-eclaims of t-e complainants was t-ree years, as provided in Article ()% of t-e

Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, and not ten years as provided in Article %%// oft-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines nor one year as provided in t-e Amiri Decreeo. (+ of %)01.

n t-e t-ird issue, LR# agreed wit- t-e 34A Administrator t-at t-e laborcases cannot be treated as a class suit for t-e simple reason t-at not all t-ecomplainants wor=ed in Ba-rain and t-erefore, t-e subect matter of t-e action,t-e claims arising from t-e Ba-rain law, is not of common or general interest toall t-e complainants.

n t-e fourt- issue, LR# found at least t-ree infractions of t-e cardinal rules of

administrative due process6 namely, 7%8 t-e failure of t-e 34A Administrator toconsider t-e evidence presented by A!B# and BR!!: 7(8 some findings of factwere not supported by substantial evidence: and 7+8 some of t-e evidence uponw-ic- t-e decision was based were not disclosed to A!B# and BR!! during t-e-earing.

n t-e fift- issue, LR# sustained t-e ruling of t-e 34A Administrator t-at BR!!and A!B# are solidarily liable for t-e claims of t-e complainants and -eld t-atBR!! was t-e actual employer of t-e complainants, or at t-e very least, t-eindirect employer, wit- A!B# as t-e labor contractor.

LR# also -eld t-at urisdiction over BR!! was ac?uired by t-e 34AAdministrator t-roug- t-e summons served on A!B#, its local agent.

n t-e si@t- issue, LR# -eld t-at t-e 34A Administrator was correct indenying t-e Motion to Declare A!B# in default.

n t-e sevent- issue, w-ic- involved ot-er money claims not based on t-e AmiriDecree o. (+, LR# ruled6


22/44

7%8 t-at t-e 34A Administrator -as no urisdiction over t-e claims for refund oft-e SSS premiums and refund of wit--olding ta@es and t-e claimants s-ould filet-eir claims for said refund wit- t-e appropriate government agencies:

7(8 t-e claimants failed to establis- t-at t-ey are entitled to t-e claims w-ic- arenot based on t-e overseas employment contracts nor t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of

%)01:

7+8 t-at t-e 34A Administrator -as no urisdiction over claims for moral ande@emplary damages and nonet-eless, t-e basis for granting said damages wasnot establis-ed:

7/8 t-at t-e claims for salaries corresponding to t-e une@pired portion of t-eircontract may be allowed if filed wit-in t-e t-ree*year prescriptive period:

7'8 t-at t-e allegation t-at complainants were prematurely repatriated prior to t-ee@piration of t-eir overseas contract was not establis-ed: and

718 t-at t-e 34A Administrator -as no urisdiction over t-e complaint for t-e

suspension or cancellation of t-e A!B#5s recruitment license and t-e cancellationof t-e accreditation of BR!!.

LR# passed sub silencio t-e last issue, t-e claim t-at 34A #ase o. 7L8 91*1'*/1& s-ould -ave been dismissed on t-e ground t-at t-e claimants in saidcase were also claimants in 34A #ase o. 7L8 9/*&1*'''. !nstead of dismissing34A #ase o. 7L8 91*1'*/1&, t-e 34A ust resolved t-e corresponding claimsin 34A #ase o. 7L8 9/*&1*'''. !n ot-er words, t-e 34A did not pass upont-e same claims twice.

*R* .o* !#/001

#laimants in G.R. o. %&/001 based t-eir petition for certiorarion t-e followinggrounds6

7%8 t-at t-ey were deprived by LR# and t-e 34A of t-eir rig-t to a speedydisposition of t-eir cases as guaranteed by Section %1, Article !!! of t-e %)90#onstitution. -e 34A Administrator allowed private respondents to file t-eiranswers in two years 7on


23/44

7'8 t-at LR# and t-e 34A Administrator s-ould -ave dismissed 34A #aseo. L*91*&'*/1&, t-e case filed by Atty. $lorante de #astro 7Rollo, pp. +%*/&8.

A!B# and BR!!, commenting on t-e petition in G.R. o. %&/001, argued6

7%8 t-at t-ey were not responsible for t-e delay in t-e disposition of t-e labor

cases, considering t-e great difficulty of getting all t-e records of t-e more t-an%,'&& claimants, t-e piece*meal filing of t-e complaints and t-e addition of-undreds of new claimants by petitioners:

7(8 t-at considering t-e number of complaints and claimants, it was impossible toprepare t-e answers wit-in t-e ten*day period provided in t-e LR# Rules, t-atw-en t-e motion to declare A!B# in default was filed on


24/44

agreements wit- A!B# and BR!! wit- t-e assistance of Atty. De #astro, -ad allsigned a retainer agreement wit- -is law firm 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 1(+*1(/: 9+9*%'+'8.

Contempt of Court

n $ebruary %9, %))+, an omnibus motion was filed by Atty. Del Mundo to citeAtty. De #astro and Atty. Kat ierra for contempt of court and for violation of#anons %, %' and %1 of t-e #ode of 3rofessional Responsibility. -e saidlawyers allegedly misled t-is #ourt, by ma=ing it appear t-at t-e claimants w-oentered into t-e compromise agreements were represented by Atty. De #astro,w-en in fact t-ey were represented by Atty. Del Mundo 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo,pp. %'1&*%1%/8.

n September (+, %))/, Atty. Del Mundo reiterated -is c-arges against Atty. De#astro for unet-ical practices and moved for t-e voiding of t-e ?uitclaims

submitted by some of t-e claimants.

*R* .os* !#/3!!-!/

-e claimants in G.R. os. %&/)%%*%/ based t-eir petition forcertiorari on t-egrounds t-at LR# gravely abused its discretion w-en it6 7%8 applied t-e t-ree*year prescriptive period under t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines: and 7(8 itdenied t-e claimant5s formula based on an average overtime pay of t-ree -ours aday 7Rollo, pp. %9*((8.

-e claimants argue t-at said met-od was proposed by BR!! itself during t-e

negotiation for an amicable settlement of t-eir money claims in Ba-rain as s-ownin t-e Memorandum dated April %1, %)9+ of t-e Ministry of Labor of Ba-rain7Rollo, pp. (%*((8.

BR!! and A!B#, in t-eir #omment, reiterated t-eir contention in G.R. o. %&/001t-at t-e prescriptive period in t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, a special law,prevails over t-at provided in t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, a general law.

As to t-e memorandum of t-e Ministry of Labor of Ba-rain on t-e met-od ofcomputing t-e overtime pay, BR!! and A!B# claimed t-at t-ey were not bound byw-at appeared t-erein, because suc- memorandum was proposed by a

subordinate Ba-rain official and t-ere was no s-owing t-at it was approved byt-e Ba-rain Minister of Labor. Li=ewise, t-ey claimed t-at t-e averaging met-odwas discussed in t-e course of t-e negotiation for t-e amicable settlement of t-edispute and any offer made by a party t-erein could not be used as an admissionby -im 7Rollo, pp. ((9*(+18.

*R* .os* !#"#'3-4'


25/44

!n G.R. os. %&'&()*+(, BR!! and A!B# claim t-at LR# gravely abused itsdiscretion w-en it6 7%8 enforced t-e provisions of t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01and not t-e terms of t-e employment contracts: 7(8 granted claims for -oliday,overtime and leave indemnity pay and ot-er benefits, on evidence admitted incontravention of petitioner5s constitutional rig-t to due process: and 7+8 ordered

t-e 34A Administrator to -old new -earings for t-e 19+ claimants w-ose claims-ad been dismissed for lac= of proof by t-e 34A Administrator or LR# itself.Lastly, t-ey allege t-at assuming t-at t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01 wasapplicable, LR# erred w-en it did not apply t-e one*year prescription providedin said law 7Rollo, pp. ()*+&8.

!

*R* .o* !#/0015 *R* .os* !#/3!!-!/5 *R* .os* !#"#'3-4'

All t-e petitions raise t-e common issue of prescription alt-oug- t-ey disagreed

as to t-e time t-at s-ould be embraced wit-in t-e prescriptive period.

o t-e 34A Administrator, t-e prescriptive period was ten years, applyingArticle %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines. LR# believed ot-erwise, fi@ingt-e prescriptive period at t-ree years as provided in Article ()% of t-e Labor#ode of t-e 3-ilippines.

-e claimants in G.R. o. %&/001 and G.R. os. %&/)%%*%/, invo=ing differentgrounds, insisted t-at LR# erred in ruling t-at t-e prescriptive period applicableto t-e claims was t-ree years, instead of ten years, as found by t-e 34A

Administrator.

-e Solicitor General e@pressed -is personal view t-at t-e prescriptive periodwas one year as prescribed by t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01 but -e deferredto t-e ruling of LR# t-at Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines wast-e operative law.

-e 34A Administrator -eld t-e view t-at6

-ese money claims 7under Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode8 refer to t-ose arisingfrom t-e employer5s violation of t-e employee5s rig-t as provided by t-e Labor#ode.

!n t-e instant case, w-at t-e respondents violated are not t-e rig-ts of t-ewor=ers as provided by t-e Labor #ode, but t-e provisions of t-e Amiri Decreeo. (+ issued in Ba-rain, w-ic-ipso facto amended t-e wor=er5s contracts ofemployment. Respondents consciously failed to conform to t-ese provisionsw-ic- specifically provide for t-e increase of t-e wor=er5s rate. !t was only after


26/44

;ence, premises considered, t-e applicable law of prescription to t-is instantcase is Article %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- provides6

Art. %%//. -e following actions may be broug-t wit-in ten yearsfrom t-e time t-e cause of action accrues6

7%8 Cpon a written contract:

7(8 Cpon an obligation created by law:

-us, -erein money claims of t-e complainants against t-e respondents s-allprescribe in ten years from August %1, %)01. !nasmuc- as all claims were filedwit-in t-e ten*year prescriptive period, no claim suffered t-e infirmity of beingprescribed 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, 9)*)&8.

!n overruling t-e 34A Administrator, and -olding t-at t-e prescriptive period ist-ree years as provided in Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, t-eLR# argued as follows6

-e Labor #ode provides t-at 2all money claims arising from employer*employeerelations . . . s-all be filed wit-in t-ree years from t-e time t-e cause of actionaccrued: ot-erwise t-ey s-all be forever barred2 7Art. ()%, Labor #ode, asamended8. -is t-ree*year prescriptive period s-all be t-e one applied -ere andw-ic- s-ould be rec=oned from t-e date of repatriation of eac- individualcomplainant, considering t-e fact t-at t-e case is -aving 7sic8 filed in t-is country.>e do not agree wit- t-e 34A Administrator t-at t-is t-ree*year prescriptiveperiod applies only to money claims specifically recoverable under t-e 3-ilippineLabor #ode. Article ()% gives no suc- indication. Li=ewise, >e can not considercomplainants5 cause"s of action to -ave accrued from a violation of t-eiremployment contracts. -ere was no violation: t-e claims arise from t-e benefitsof t-e law of t-e country w-ere t-ey wor=ed. 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp.

)&*)%8.

Anent t-e applicability of t-e one*year prescriptive period as provided by t-eAmiri Decree o. (+ of %)01, LR# opined t-at t-e applicability of said law wasone of c-aracteriation, i.e., w-et-er to c-aracterie t-e foreign law onprescription or statute of limitation as 2substantive2 or 2procedural.2 LR# citedt-e decision in 6ournias v* Atlantic 7aritime Company 7((& $. (d. %'(, (d #ir.I%)''J, w-ere t-e issue was t-e applicability of t-e 3anama Labor #ode in acase filed in t-e State of ew or= for claims arising from said #ode. !n saidcase, t-e claims would -ave prescribed under t-e 3anamanian Law but notunder t-e Statute of Limitations of ew or=. -e C.S. #ircuit #ourt of Appeals

-eld t-at t-e 3anamanian Law was procedural as it was not 2specifically intendedto be substantive,2 -ence, t-e prescriptive period provided in t-e law of t-e forums-ould apply. -e #ourt observed6

. . . And w-ere, as -ere, we are dealing wit- a statute of limitations of a foreigncountry, and it is not clear on t-e face of t-e statute t-at its purpose was to limitt-e enforceability, outside as well as wit-in t-e foreign country concerned, of t-esubstantive rig-ts to w-ic- t-e statute pertains, we t-in= t-at as a yardstic= fordetermining w-et-er t-at was t-e purpose t-is test is t-e most satisfactory one. !t


27/44

does not lead American courts into t-e necessity of e@amining into t-e unfamiliarpeculiarities and refinements of different foreign legal systems. . .

-e court furt-er noted6

@@@ @@@ @@@

Applying t-at test -ere it appears to us t-at t-e libelant is entitled to succeed, fort-e respondents -ave failed to satisfy us t-at t-e 3anamanian period of limitationin ?uestion was specifically aimed against t-e particular rig-ts w-ic- t-e libelantsee=s to enforce. -e 3anama Labor #ode is a statute -aving broad obectives,vi6 2-e present #ode regulates t-e relations between capital and labor, placingt-em on a basis of social ustice, so t-at, wit-out inuring any of t-e parties, t-eremay be guaranteed for labor t-e necessary conditions for a normal life and tocapital an e?uitable return to its investment.2 !n pursuance of t-ese obectives t-e#ode gives laborers various rig-ts against t-eir employers. Article 1(+establis-es t-e period of limitation for all suc- rig-ts, e@cept certain ones w-ic-are enumerated in Article 1(%. And t-ere is not-ing in t-e record to indicate t-att-e 3anamanian legislature gave special consideration to t-e impact of Article

1(+ upon t-e particular rig-ts soug-t to be enforced -ere, as distinguis-ed fromt-e ot-er rig-ts to w-ic- t-at Article is also applicable. >ere we confronted wit-t-e ?uestion of w-et-er t-e limitation period of Article 1(% 7w-ic- carves outparticular rig-ts to be governed by a s-orter limitation period8 is to be regardedas 2substantive2 or 2procedural2 under t-e rule of 2specifity2 we mig-t -ave adifferent case: but -ere on t-e surface of t-ings we appear to be dealing wit- a2broad,2 and not a 2specific,2 statute of limitations 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp.)(*)/8.

#laimants in G.R. os. %&/)%%*%/ are of t-e view t-at Article ()% of t-e Labor#ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- was applied by LR#, refers only to claims2arising from t-e employer5s violation of t-e employee5s rig-t as provided by t-e

Labor #ode.2 -ey assert t-at t-eir claims are based on t-e violation of t-eiremployment contracts, as amended by t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01 andt-erefore t-e claims may be broug-t wit-in ten years as provided by Article %%//of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines 7Rollo, G.R. os. %&/)%%*%/, pp.%9*(%8. o bolster t-eir contention, t-ey citePA2EA v* Philippine Airlines 8nc., 0&S#RA (// 7%)018.

A!B# and BR!!, insisting t-at t-e actions on t-e claims -ave prescribed under t-eAmiri Decree o. (+ of %)01, argue t-at t-ere is in force in t-e 3-ilippines a2borrowing law,2 w-ic- is Section /9 of t-e #ode of #ivil 3rocedure and t-atw-ere suc- =ind of law e@ists, it ta=es precedence over t-e common*law conflicts

rule 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. /'*/18.

$irst to be determined is w-et-er it is t-e Ba-rain law on prescription of actionbased on t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01 or a 3-ilippine law on prescription t-ats-all be t-e governing law.

Article %'1 of t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01 provides6


28/44

A claim arising out of a contract of employment s-all not be actionable after t-elapse of one year from t-e date of t-e e@piry of t-e contract. 7G.R. os. %&'&()*+%, Rollo, p. ((18.

As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in t-e forum.3rocedural matters, suc- as service of process, oinder of actions, period and

re?uisites for appeal, and so fort-, are governed by t-e laws of t-e forum. -is istrue even if t-e action is based upon a foreign substantive law 7Restatement oft-e #onflict of Laws, Sec. 19': Salonga, 3rivate !nternational Law, %+% I%)0)J8.

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in #onflict of Laws in t-e sense t-atit may be viewed eit-er as procedural or substantive, depending on t-ec-aracteriation given suc- a law.

-us in 6ournias v* Atlantic 7aritime Company supra t-e American courtapplied t-e statute of limitations of ew or=, instead of t-e 3anamanian law,after finding t-at t-ere was no s-owing t-at t-e 3anamanian law on prescription

was intended to be substantive. Being considered merely a procedural law evenin 3anama, it -as to give way to t-e law of t-e forum on prescription of actions.

;owever, t-e c-aracteriation of a statute into a procedural or substantive lawbecomes irrelevant w-en t-e country of t-e forum -as a 2borrowing statute.2 Saidstatute -as t-e practical effect of treating t-e foreign statute of limitation as oneof substance 7Goodric-, #onflict of Laws %'(*%'+ I%)+9J8. A 2borrowing statute2directs t-e state of t-e forum to apply t-e foreign statute of limitations to t-epending claims based on a foreign law 7Siegel, #onflicts, %9+ I%)0'J8. >-ilet-ere are several =inds of 2borrowing statutes,2 one form provides t-at an actionbarred by t-e laws of t-e place w-ere it accrued, will not be enforced in t-e forum

even t-oug- t-e local statute -as not run against it 7Goodric- and Scoles,#onflict of Laws, %'(*%'+ I%)+9J8. Section /9 of our #ode of #ivil 3rocedure is oft-is =ind. Said Section provides6

!f by t-e laws of t-e state or country w-ere t-e cause of action arose, t-e actionis barred, it is also barred in t-e 3-ilippines !slands.

Section /9 -as not been repealed or amended by t-e #ivil #ode of t-e3-ilippines. Article ((0& of said #ode repealed only t-ose provisions of t-e #odeof #ivil 3rocedures as to w-ic- were inconsistent wit- it. -ere is no provision int-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- is inconsistent wit- or contradictory to

Section /9 of t-e #ode of #ivil 3rocedure 73aras, 3-ilippine #onflict of Laws %&/I0t- ed.J8.

!n t-e lig-t of t-e %)90 #onstitution, -owever, Section /9 cannot be enforced exproprio vigore insofar as it ordains t-e application in t-is urisdiction of Section%'1 of t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01.


29/44

-e courts of t-e forum will not enforce any foreign claim obno@ious to t-eforum5s public policy 7#anadian ort-ern Railway #o. v. 4ggen, ('( C.S. ''+, /&S. #t. /&(, 1/ L. ed. 0%+ I%)(&J8. o enforce t-e one*year prescriptive period oft-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01 as regards t-e claims in ?uestion wouldcontravene t-e public policy on t-e protection to labor.

!n t-e Declaration of 3rinciples and State 3olicies, t-e %)90 #onstitutionemp-asied t-at6

-e state s-all promote social ustice in all p-ases of national development.7Sec. %&8.

-e state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. !t s-all protect t-erig-ts of wor=ers and promote t-eir welfare 7Sec. %98.

!n article O!!! on Social


30/44

-e case of Philippine Air 2ines Employees Association v* Philippine Air 2ines8nc*, 0& S#RA (// 7%)018 invo=ed by t-e claimants in G.R. os. %&/)%%*%/ isinapplicable to t-e cases at benc- 7Rollo, p. (%8. -e said case involved t-ecorrect computation of overtime pay as provided in t-e collective bargainingagreements and not t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law.

As noted by t-e #ourt6 2-at is precisely w-y petitioners did not ma=e anyreference as to t-e computation for overtime wor= under t-e 4ig-t*;our LaborLaw 7Secs. + and /, #A o. /)/8 and instead insisted t-at wor= computationprovided in t-e collective bargaining agreements between t-e parties beobserved. Since t-e claim for pay differentials is primarily anc-ored on t-e writtencontracts between t-e litigants, t-e ten*year prescriptive period provided by Art.%%//7%8 of t-e ew #ivil #ode s-ould govern.2

Section 0*a of t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law 7#A o. /// as amended by R.A. o.%))++8 provides6

Any action to enforce any cause of action under t-is Act s-all be commencedwit-in t-ree years after t-e cause of action accrued ot-erwise suc- action s-allbe forever barred, . . . .

-e court furt-er e@plained6

-e t-ree*year prescriptive period fi@ed in t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law 7#A o. ///as amended8 will apply, if t-e claim for differentials for overtime wor= is solelybased on said law, and not on a collective bargaining agreement or any ot-ercontract. !n t-e instant case, t-e claim for overtime compensation is not so muc-because of #ommonwealt- Act o. ///, as amended but because t-e claim isdemandable rig-t of t-e employees, by reason of t-e above*mentioned collective

bargaining agreement.

Section 0*a of t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law provides t-e prescriptive period for filing2actions to enforce any cause of action under said law.2 n t-e ot-er -and,

Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines provides t-e prescriptive periodfor filing 2money claims arising from employer*employee relations.2 -e claims int-e cases at benc- all arose from t-e employer*employee relations, w-ic- isbroader in scope t-an claims arising from a specific law or from t-e collectivebargaining agreement.

-e contention of t-e 34A Administrator, t-at t-e t-ree*year prescriptive period

under Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines applies only to moneyclaims specifically recoverable under said #ode, does not find support in t-eplain language of t-e provision. eit-er is t-e contention of t-e claimants in G.R.os. %&/)%%*%/ t-at said Article refers only to claims 2arising from t-eemployer5s violation of t-e employee5s rig-t,2 as provided by t-e Labor #odesupported by t-e facial reading of t-e provision.

!!


31/44

*R* .o* !#/001

A. As to t-e first two grounds for t-e petition in G.R. o. %&/001, claimants aver67%8 t-at w-ile t-eir complaints were filed on


32/44

Since ar None bonus or premium pay of at least %&& of basic pay:

'. Area Differential pay:

1. Accrued !nterest of all t-e unpaid benefits:

0. Salary differential pay:

9. >age Differential pay:

). Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to Social Security System:

%&. Refund of >it--olding a@ not remitted to Bureau of !nternal Revenue7B.!.R.8:

%%. $ringe Benefits under Brown Root5s 2A Summary of 4mployees Benefitsconsisting of /+ pages 7Anne@ 2H2 of Amended #omplaint8:

%(. Moral and 4@emplary Damages:


33/44

%+. Attorney5s fees of at least ten percent of amounts:

%/. t-er reliefs, li=e suspending and"or cancelling t-e license to recruit of A!B#and issued by t-e 34A: and

%'. 3enalty for violation of Article +/ 73ro-ibited practices8 not e@cluding

reportorial re?uirements t-ereof 7LR# Resolution, September (, %))%, pp. %9*%): G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 0+*0/8.

!nasmuc- as t-e complaint did not allege wit- sufficient definiteness and clarity ofsome facts, t-e claimants were ordered to comply wit- t-e motion of A!B# for abill of particulars. >-en claimants filed t-eir 2#ompliance and Manifestation,2

A!B# moved to stri=e out t-e complaint from t-e records for failure of claimantsto submit a proper bill of particulars. >-ile t-e 34A Administrator denied t-emotion to stri=e out t-e complaint, -e ordered t-e claimants 2to correct t-edeficiencies2 pointed out by A!B#.

Before an intelligent answer could be filed in response to t-e complaint, t-erecords of employment of t-e more t-an %,0&& claimants -ad to be retrieved fromvarious countries in t-e Middle 4ast. Some of t-e records dated as far bac= as%)0'.

-e -earings on t-e merits of t-e claims before t-e 34A Administrator wereinterrupted several times by t-e various appeals, first to LR# and t-en to t-eSupreme #ourt.

Aside from t-e inclusion of additional claimants, two new cases were filed againstA!B# and BR!! on ctober %&, %)9' 734A #ases os.

L*9'*%&*000 and L*9'*%&*00)8. Anot-er complaint was filed on May (), %)91734A #ase o. L*91*&'*/1&8. LR#, in e@asperation, noted t-at t-e e@actnumber of claimants -ad never been completely establis-ed 7Resolution, Sept. (,%))%, G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, p. '08. All t-e t-ree new cases were consolidatedwit- 34A #ase o. L*9/*&1*'''.

LR# blamed t-e parties and t-eir lawyers for t-e delay in terminating t-eproceedings, t-us6

-ese cases could -ave been spared t-e long and arduous route towardsresolution -ad t-e parties and t-eir counsel been more interested in pursuing t-etrut- and t-e merits of t-e claims rat-er t-an e@-ibiting a fanatical reliance on

tec-nicalities. 3arties and counsel -ave made t-ese cases a litigation of emotion.-e intransigence of parties and counsel is remar=able. As late as last mont-,t-is #ommission made a last and final attempt to bring t-e counsel of all t-eparties 7t-is #ommission issued a special order directing respondent Brown Root5s resident agent"s to appear8 to come to a more conciliatory stance. 4vent-is failed 7Rollo,p. '98.


34/44

-e s?uabble between t-e lawyers of claimants added to t-e delay in t-edisposition of t-e cases, to t-e lament of LR#, w-ic- complained6

!t is very evident from t-e records t-at t-e protagonists in t-ese consolidatedcases appear to be not only t-e individual complainants, on t-e one -and, and

A!B# and Brown Root, on t-e ot-er -and. -e two lawyers for t-e

complainants, Atty. Gerardo Del Mundo and Atty. $lorante De #astro, -ave yet tosettle t-e rig-t of representation, eac- one persistently claiming to appear inbe-alf of most of t-e complainants. As a result, t-ere are two appeals by t-ecomplainants. Attempts by t-is #ommission to resolve counsels5 conflictingclaims of t-eir respective aut-ority to represent t-e complainants prove futile.-e bic=erings by t-ese two counsels are reflected in t-eir pleadings. !n t-ec-arges and counterc-arges of falsification of documents and signatures, and int-e disbarment proceedings by one against t-e ot-er. All t-ese -ave, to a largee@tent, abetted in confounding t-e issues raised in t-ese cases, umble t-epresentation of evidence, and even derailed t-e prospects of an amicablesettlement. !t would not be far*fetc-ed to imagine t-at bot- counsel, unwittingly,per-aps, painted a rainbow for t-e complainants, wit- t-e proverbial pot of goldat its end containing more t-an CSF%&& million, t-e aggregate of t-e claims in

t-ese cases. !t is, li=ewise, not improbable t-at t-eir misplaced eal ande@uberance caused t-em to t-row all caution to t-e wind in t-e matter ofelementary rules of procedure and evidence 7Rollo, pp. '9*')8.

Adding to t-e confusion in t-e proceedings before LR#, is t-e listing of some oft-e complainants in bot- petitions filed by t-e two lawyers. As noted by LR#,2t-e problem created by t-is situation is t-at if one of t-e two petitions isdismissed, t-en t-e parties and t-e public respondents would not =now w-ic-claim of w-ic- petitioner was dismissed and w-ic- was not.2

B. #laimants insist t-at all t-eir claims could properly be consolidated in a 2classsuit2 because 2all t-e named complainants -ave similar money claims and similarrig-ts soug-t irrespective of w-et-er t-ey wor=ed in Ba-rain, Cnited Arab4mirates or in Abu D-abi, Libya or in any part of t-e Middle 4ast2 7Rollo, pp. +'*+98.

A class suit is proper w-ere t-e subect matter of t-e controversy is one ofcommon or general interest to many and t-e parties are so numerous t-at it isimpracticable to bring t-em all before t-e court 7Revised Rules of #ourt, Rule +,Sec. %(8.

>-ile all t-e claims are for benefits granted under t-e Ba-rain Law, many of t-eclaimants wor=ed outside Ba-rain. Some of t-e claimants were deployed in!ndonesia and Malaysia under different terms and conditions of employment.

LR# and t-e 34A Administrator are correct in t-eir stance t-at inasmuc- ast-e first re?uirement of a class suit is not present 7common or general interestbased on t-e Amiri Decree of t-e State of Ba-rain8, it is only logical t-at onlyt-ose w-o wor=ed in Ba-rain s-all be entitled to file t-eir claims in a class suit.


35/44

>-ile t-ere are common defendants 7A!B# and BR!!8 and t-e nature of t-eclaims is t-e same 7for employee5s benefits8, t-ere is no common ?uestion of lawor fact. >-ile some claims are based on t-e Amiri Law of Ba-rain, many of t-eclaimants never wor=ed in t-at country, but were deployed elsew-ere. -us,eac- claimant is interested only in -is own demand and not in t-e claims of t-e

ot-er employees of defendants. -e named claimants -ave a special orparticular interest in specific benefits completely different from t-e benefits inw-ic- t-e ot-er named claimants and t-ose included as members of a 2class2are claiming 7Berses v. illanueva, (' 3-il. /0+ I%)%+J8. !t appears t-at eac-claimant is only interested in collecting -is own claims. A claimants -as noconcern in protecting t-e interests of t-e ot-er claimants as s-own by t-e fact,t-at -undreds of t-em -ave abandoned t-eir co*claimants and -ave entered intoseparate compromise settlements of t-eir respective claims. A principle basic tot-e concept of 2class suit2 is t-at plaintiffs broug-t on t-e record must fairlyrepresent and protect t-e interests of t-e ot-ers 7Dimayuga v. #ourt of !ndustrialRelations, %&% 3-il. ')& I%)'0J8. $or t-is matter, t-e claimants w-o wor=ed in

Ba-rain can not be allowed to sue in a class suit in a udicial proceeding. -emost t-at can be accorded to t-em under t-e Rules of #ourt is to be allowed tooin as plaintiffs in one complaint 7Revised Rules of #ourt, Rule +, Sec. 18.

-e #ourt is e@tra*cautious in allowing class suits because t-ey are t-ee@ceptions to t-e condition sine qua non, re?uiring t-e oinder of allindispensable parties.

!n an improperly instituted class suit, t-ere would be no problem if t-e decisionsecured is favorable to t-e plaintiffs. -e problem arises w-en t-e decision isadverse to t-em, in w-ic- case t-e ot-ers w-o were impleaded by t-eir self*

appointed representatives, would surely claim denial of due process.

#. -e claimants in G.R. o. %&/001 also urged t-at t-e 34A Administratorand LR# s-ould -ave declared Atty. $lorante De #astro guilty of 2forums-opping, ambulance c-asing activities, falsification, duplicity and ot-erunprofessional activities2 and -is appearances as counsel for some of t-eclaimants as illegal 7Rollo, pp. +9*/&8.

-e Anti*$orum S-opping Rule 7Revised #ircular o. (9*)%8 is intended to put astop to t-e practice of some parties of filing multiple petitions and complaintsinvolving t-e same issues, wit- t-e result t-at t-e courts or agencies -ave toresolve t-e same issues. Said Rule, -owever, applies only to petitions filed wit-t-e Supreme #ourt and t-e #ourt of Appeals. !t is entitled 2AdditionalRe?uirements $or 3etitions $iled wit- t-e Supreme #ourt and t-e #ourt of

Appeals o 3revent $orum S-opping or Multiple $iling of 3etitioners and#omplainants.2 -e first sentence of t-e circular e@pressly states t-at saidcircular applies to an governs t-e filing of petitions in t-e Supreme #ourt and t-e#ourt of Appeals.


36/44

>-ile Administrative #ircular o. &/*)/ e@tended t-e application of t-e anti*forum s-opping rule to t-e lower courts and administrative agencies, said circulartoo= effect only on April %, %))/.

34A and LR# could not -ave entertained t-e complaint for unet-ical conduct

against Atty. De #astro because LR# and 34A -ave no urisdiction toinvestigate c-arges of unet-ical conduct of lawyers.

Attorney&s 2ien

-e 2otice and #laim to 4nforce Attorney5s Lien2 dated December %/, %))( wasfiled by Atty. Gerardo A. Del Mundo to protect -is claim for attorney5s fees forlegal services rendered in favor of t-e claimants 7G.R. o. %&/001, Rollo, pp.9/%*9//8.

A statement of a claim for a c-arging lien s-all be filed wit- t-e court or

administrative agency w-ic- renders and e@ecutes t-e money udgment securedby t-e lawyer for -is clients. -e lawyer s-all cause written notice t-ereof to bedelivered to -is clients and to t-e adverse party 7Revised Rules of #ourt, Rule%+9, Sec. +08. -e statement of t-e claim for t-e c-arging lien of Atty. Del Mundos-ould -ave been filed wit- t-e administrative agency t-at rendered ande@ecuted t-e udgment.

Contempt of Court

-e complaint of Atty. Gerardo A. Del Mundo to cite Atty. $lorante De #astro andAtty. Kat ierra for violation of t-e #ode of 3rofessional Responsibility s-ould be

filed in a separate and appropriate proceeding.

*R* .o* !#/3!!-!/

#laimants c-arge LR# wit- grave abuse of discretion in not accepting t-eirformula of 2-ree ;ours Average Daily vertime2 in computing t-e overtimepayments. -ey claim t-at it was BR!! itself w-ic- proposed t-e formula duringt-e negotiations for t-e settlement of t-eir claims in Ba-rain and t-erefore it is inestoppel to disclaim said offer 7Rollo, pp. (%*((8.

#laimants presented a Memorandum of t-e Ministry of Labor of Ba-rain dated

April %1, %)9+, w-ic- in pertinent part states6After t-e perusal of t-e memorandum of t-e ;ice President and the Area7anager 7iddle East of 6rown < Root Co. and t-e Summary of t-ecompensation offered by t-e #ompany to t-e employees in respect of t-edifference of pay of t-e wages of t-e overtime and t-e difference of vacationleave and t-e perusal of t-e documents attac-ed t-ereto i.e., minutes of t-emeetings between t-e Representative of t-e employees and t-e management oft-e #ompany, t-e complaint filed by t-e employees on %/"("9+ w-ere t-ey -aveclaimed as -ereinabove stated, sample of t-e Service #ontract e@ecuted


37/44

between one of t-e employees and t-e company t-roug- its agent in7sic8Philippines Asia 8nternational 6uilders Corporationw-ere it -as been providedfor /9 -ours of wor= per wee= and an annual leave of %( days and an overtimewage of ! < !=/ of the normal hourly wage.

@@@ @@@ @@@

-e #ompany in its computation reac-ed t-e following averages6

A. %. -e average duration of t-e actual service of t-e employee is +' mont-s fort-e 3-ilippino 7sic8 employees . . . .

(. -e average wage per -our for t-e 3-ilippino 7sic8 employee is CSF(.1) . . . .

+. )he average hours for the overtime is 4 hours plus in all public holidays andweekends.

/. Payment of >,?(*0' per months @sic of service as compensation for thedifference of the wages of theovertime done for eac- 3-ilippino 7sic8employee . . . 7Rollo, p.((8.

BR!! and A!B# countered6 7%8 t-at t-e Memorandum was not prepared by t-embut by a subordinate official in t-e Ba-rain Department of Labor: 7(8 t-at t-erewas no s-owing t-at t-e Ba-rain Minister of Labor -ad approved saidmemorandum: and 7+8 t-at t-e offer was made in t-e course of t-e negotiationfor an amicable settlement of t-e claims and t-erefore it was not admissible inevidence to prove t-at anyt-ing is due to t-e claimants.

>-ile said document was presented to t-e 34A wit-out observing t-e rule onpresenting official documents of a foreign government as provided in Section (/,

Rule %+( of t-e %)9) Revised Rules on 4vidence, it can be admitted in evidencein proceedings before an administrative body. -e opposing parties -ave a copyof t-e said memorandum, and t-ey could easily verify its aut-enticity andaccuracy.

-e admissibility of t-e offer of compromise made by BR!! as contained in t-ememorandum is anot-er matter. Cnder Section (0, Rule %+& of t-e %)9) RevisedRules on 4vidence, an offer to settle a claim is not an admission t-at anyt-ing isdue.

Said Rule provides6

ffer of compromise not admissible. E !n civil cases, an offer of compromise isnot an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against t-eofferor.

-is Rule is not only a rule of procedure to avoid t-e cluttering of t-e record wit-unwanted evidence but a statement of public policy. -ere is great public interestin -aving t-e protagonists settle t-eir differences amicable before t-ese ripen into


38/44

litigation. 4very effort must be ta=en to encourage t-em to arrive at a settlement.-e submission of offers and counter*offers in t-e negotiation table is a step int-e rig-t direction. But to bind a party to -is offers, as w-at claimants would ma=et-is #ourt do, would defeat t-e salutary purpose of t-e Rule.

*R* .os* !#"#'3-4'

A. LR# applied t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01, w-ic- provides for greaterbenefits t-an t-ose stipulated in t-e overseas*employment contracts of t-eclaimants. !t was of t-e belief t-at 2w-ere t-e laws of t-e -ost country are morefavorable and beneficial to t-e wor=ers, t-en t-e laws of t-e -ost country s-allform part of t-e overseas employment contract.2 !t ?uoted wit- approval t-eobservation of t-e 34A Administrator t-at 2. . . in labor proceedings, all doubtsin t-e implementation of t-e provisions of t-e Labor #ode and its implementingregulations s-all be resolved in favor of labor2 7Rollo, pp. )&*)/8.

A!B# and BR!! claim t-at LR# acted capriciously and w-imsically w-en itrefused to enforce t-e overseas*employment contracts, w-ic- became t-e law oft-e parties. -ey contend t-at t-e principle t-at a law is deemed to be a part of acontract applies only to provisions of 3-ilippine law in relation to contractse@ecuted in t-e 3-ilippines.

-e overseas*employment contracts, w-ic- were prepared by A!B# and BR!!t-emselves, provided t-at t-e laws of t-e -ost country became applicable to saidcontracts if t-ey offer terms and conditions more favorable t-at t-ose stipulatedt-erein. !t was stipulated in said contracts t-at6

-e 4mployee agrees t-at w-ile in t-e employ of t-e 4mployer, -e will notengage in any ot-er business or occupation, nor see= employment wit- anyoneot-er t-an t-e 4mployer: t-at -e s-all devote -is entire time and attention and -isbest energies, and abilities to t-e performance of suc- duties as may beassigned to -im by t-e 4mployer: t-at -e s-all at all times be subect to t-edirection and control of t-e 4mployer: and t-at t-e benefits provided to 4mployee-ereunder are substituted for and in lieu of all ot-er benefits provided by anyapplicable law,provided of course that total remuneration and benefits do notfall below that of the host country regulation or custom it being understood thatshould applicable laws establish that fringe benefits or other such benefitsadditional to the compensation herein agreed cannot be waived, 4mployeeagrees t-at suc- compensation will be adusted downward so t-at t-e totalcompensation -ereunder, plus t-e non*waivable benefits s-all be e?uivalent tot-e compensation -erein agreed 7Rollo, pp. +'(*+'+8.

-e overseas*employment contracts could -ave been drafted more felicitously.>-ile a part t-ereof provides t-at t-e compensation to t-e employee may be2adusted downward so t-at t-e total computation 7t-ereunder8 plus t-e non*waivable benefits s-all be e?uivalent to t-e compensation2 t-erein agreed,anot-er part of t-e same provision categorically states 2t-at total remunerationand benefits do not fall below t-at of t-e -ost country regulation and custom.2


39/44

Any ambiguity in t-e overseas*employment contracts s-ould be interpretedagainst A!B# and BR!!, t-e parties t-at drafted it 74astern S-ipping Lines, !nc. v.Margarine*er=aufs*Cnion, )+ S#RA ('0 I%)0)J8.

Article %+00 of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines provides6

-e interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract s-all not favort-e party w-o caused t-e obscurity.

Said rule of interpretation is applicable to contracts of ad-esion w-ere t-ere isalready a prepared form containing t-e stipulations of t-e employment contractand t-e employees merely 2ta=e it or leave it.2 -e presumption is t-at t-ere wasan imposition by one party against t-e ot-er and t-at t-e employees signed t-econtracts out of necessity t-at reduced t-eir bargaining power 7$ieldmen5s!nsurance #o., !nc. v. Songco, (' S#RA 0& I%)19J8.

Applying t-e said legal precepts, we read t-e overseas*employment contracts in?uestion as adopting t-e provisions of t-e Amiri Decree o. (+ of %)01 as partand parcel t-ereof.

-e parties to a contract may select t-e law by w-ic- it is to be governed7#-es-ire, 3rivate !nternational Law, %90 I0t- ed.J8. !n suc- a case, t-e foreignlaw is adopted as a 2system2 to regulate t-e relations of t-e parties, including?uestions of t-eir capacity to enter into t-e contract, t-e formalities to beobserved by t-em, matters of performance, and so fort- 7%1 Am


40/44

late -usband of t-e private respondent, e@pressly provided t-at in t-e event ofillness or inury to t-e employee arising out of and in t-e course of -isemployment and not due to -is own misconduct, 2compensation s-all be paid toemployee in accordance wit- and subect to t-e limitation of t-e >or=men5s#ompensation Act of t-e Republic of t-e 3-ilippines or t-e >or=er5s !nsurance

Act of registry of t-e vessel, w-ic-ever is greater.2 Since t-e laws of Singapore,t-e place of registry of t-e vessel in w-ic- t-e late -usband of private respondentserved at t-e time of -is deat-, granted a better compensation pac=age, weapplied said foreign law in preference to t-e terms of t-e contract.

-e case of 6agong +ilipinas Bverseas Corporation v* .ational 2abor RelationsCommission, %+' S#RA (09 7%)9'8, relied upon by A!B# and BR!! is inappositeto t-e facts of t-e cases at benc-. -e issue in t-at case was w-et-er t-eamount of t-e deat- compensation of a $ilipino seaman s-ould be determinedunder t-e s-ipboard employment contract e@ecuted in t-e 3-ilippines or t-e;ong=ong law. ;olding t-at t-e s-ipboard employment contract was controlling,

t-e court differentiated said case from orse Management #o. in t-at in t-e lattercase t-ere was an e@press stipulation in t-e employment contract t-at t-e foreignlaw would be applicable if it afforded greater compensation.

B. A!B# and BR!! claim t-at t-ey were denied by LR# of t-eir rig-t to dueprocess w-en said administrative agency granted $riday*pay differential, -oliday*pay differential, annual*leave differential and leave indemnity pay to t-eclaimants listed in Anne@ B of t-e Resolution. At first, LR# reversed t-eresolution of t-e 34A Administrator granting t-ese benefits on a finding t-at t-e34A Administrator failed to consider t-e evidence presented by A!B# and BR!!,t-at some findings of fact of t-e 34A Administrator were not supported by t-e

evidence, and t-at some of t-e evidence were not disclosed to A!B# and BR!!7Rollo, pp. +'*+1: %&1*%&08. But instead of remanding t-e case to t-e 34AAdministrator for a new -earing, w-ic- means furt-er delay in t-e termination oft-e case, LR# decided to pass upon t-e validity of t-e claims itself. !t is t-isprocedure t-at A!B# and BR!! complain of as being irregular and a 2reversibleerror.2

-ey pointed out t-at LR# too= into consideration evidence submitted onappeal, t-e same evidence w-ic- LR# found to -ave been 2unilaterallysubmitted by t-e claimants and not disclosed to t-e adverse parties2 7Rollo, pp.+0*+)8.

LR# noted t-at so many pieces of evidentiary matters were submitted to t-e34A administrator by t-e claimants after t-e cases were deemed submitted forresolution and w-ic- were ta=en cogniance of by t-e 34A Administrator inresolving t-e cases. >-ile A!B# and BR!! -ad no opportunity to refute saidevidence of t-e claimants before t-e 34A Administrator, t-ey -ad all t-eopportunity to rebut said evidence and to present t-eircounter*evidence before LR#. As a matter of fact, A!B# and BR!! t-emselves


41/44

were able to present before LR# additional evidence w-ic- t-ey failed topresent before t-e 34A Administrator.

Cnder Article ((% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, LR# is enoined to 2useevery and all reasonable means to ascertain t-e facts in eac- case speedily and

obectively and wit-out regard to tec-nicalities of law or procedure, all in t-einterest of due process.2

!n deciding to resolve t-e validity of certain claims on t-e basis of t-e evidence ofbot- parties submitted before t-e 34A Administrator and LR#, t-e latterconsidered t-at it was not e@pedient to remand t-e cases to t-e 34A

Administrator for t-at would only prolong t-e already protracted legalcontroversies.

4ven t-e Supreme #ourt -as decided appealed cases on t-e merits instead ofremanding t-em to t-e trial court for t-e reception of evidence, w-ere t-e same

can be readily determined from t-e uncontroverted facts on record 7DevelopmentBan= of t-e 3-ilippines v. !ntermediate Appellate #ourt, %)& S#RA 1'+ I%))&J:3agdonsalan v. ational Labor Relations #ommission, %(0 S#RA /1+ I%)9/J8.

#. A!B# and BR!! c-arge LR# wit- grave abuse of discretion w-en it orderedt-e 34A Administrator to -old new -earings for 19+ claimants listed in Anne@ Dof t-e Resolution dated September (, %))% w-ose claims -ad been denied byt-e 34A Administrator 2for lac= of proof2 and for 1) claimants listed in Anne@ 4of t-e same Resolution, w-ose claims -ad been found by LR# itself as not2supported by evidence2 7Rollo, pp. /%*/'8.

LR# based its ruling on Article (%97c8 of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines,w-ic- empowers it 2ItoJ conduct investigation for t-e determination of a ?uestion,matter or controversy, wit-in its urisdiction, . . . .2

!t is t-e posture of A!B# and BR!! t-at LR# -as no aut-ority under Article(%97c8 to remand a case involving claims w-ic- -ad already been dismissedbecause suc- provision contemplates only situations w-ere t-ere is still a?uestion or controversy to be resolved 7Rollo, pp. /%*/(8.

A principle well embedded in Administrative Law is t-at t-e tec-nical rules ofprocedure and evidence do not apply to t-e proceedings conducted by

administrative agencies 7$irst Asian ransport S-ipping Agency, !nc. v. ple,%/( S#RA '/( I%)91J: Asiaworld 3ublis-ing ;ouse, !nc. v. ple, %'( S#RA (%)I%)90J8. -is principle is ens-rined in Article ((% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e3-ilippines and is now t-e bedroc= of proceedings before LR#.

otwit-standing t-e non*applicability of tec-nical rules of procedure andevidence in administrative proceedings, t-ere are cardinal rules w-ic- must beobserved by t-e -earing officers in order to comply wit- t-e due process


42/44

re?uirements of t-e #onstitution. -ese cardinal rules are collated in Ang )ibayv* Court of 8ndustrial Relations, 1) 3-il. 1+' 7%)/&8.

!!!

-e t-ree petitions were filed under Rule 1' of t-e Revised Rules of #ourt on t-egrounds t-at LR# -ad committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac=of urisdiction in issuing t-e ?uestioned orders. >e find no suc- abuse ofdiscretion.

>;4R4$R4, all t-e t-ree petitions are D!SM!SS4D.

S RD4R4D.

Padilla avide 9r* 6ellosillo and Dapunan 99* concur.

A4O A

L!S $ #LA!MAS >; S!G4D HC!#LA!MS

Bienvenido #adalin Ardon 4lloAntonio Acupan ilfredo Aligada 3atricio L. Garcia


43/44

3a?uito Solanto Sergio S. Santiago#onrado Solis,


44/44

Cadalin Digest Copy

Documents

Transcript of Cadalin Digest Copy