VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 721: Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

VOL.
238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 721

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator
*
G.R. No. 104776. December 5, 1994.
BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL,

DONATO B. EVANGELISTA, and the rest of 1,767
NAMED-COMPLAINANTS, thru and by their Attorney-in-
fact, Atty. GERARDO A. DEL MUNDO, petitioners, vs.
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION’S ADMIN-ISTRATOR, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BROWN & ROOT
INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND/OR ASIA INTER-
NATIONAL BUILDERS CORPORATION, respondents.
*
G.R. Nos. 104911-14. December 5, 1994.
BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL., petitioners, vs.

HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and/or ASIA
INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS CORPORATION,
respondents.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
722
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

G.R. Nos. 105029-32. December 5, 1994.*
ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDER CORPORATION and

BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioners,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL,
DONATO B. EVANGELISTA, ROMEO PATAG,
RIZALINO REYES, IGNACIO DE VERA, SOLOMON B.
REYES, JOSE M. ABAN, EMIGDIO N. ABARQUEZ,
ANTONIO ACUPAN, ROMEO ACUPAN, BENJAMIN
ALEJANDRE, WILFREDO D. ALIGADO, MARTIN
AMISTAD, JR., ROLANDO B. AMUL, AMORSOLO
ANADING, ANTONIO T. ANGLO, VICENTE ARLITA,
HERBERT AYO, SILVERIO BALATAZO, ALFREDO
BALOBO, FALCONERO BANAAG, RAMON BARBOSA,
FELIX BARCENA, FERNANDO BAS, MARIO
BATACLAN, ROBERTO S. BATICA, ENRICO BELEN,
ARISTEO BICOL, LARRY C. BICOL, PETRONILLO
BISCOCHO, FELIX M. BOBIER, DIONISIO BOBONGO,
BAYANI S. BRACAMANTE, PABLITO BUSTILLO,
GUILLERMO CABEZAS, BIENVENIDO CADALIN,
RODOLFO CAGATAN, AMANTE CAILAO, IRENEO
CANDOR, JOSE CASTILLO, MANUEL CASTILLO,
REMAR CASTROJERES, REYNALDO CAYAS, ROMEO
CECILIO, TEODULO CREUS, BAYANI DAYRIT,
RICARDO DAYRIT, ERNESTO T. DELA CRUZ,
FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, ONOFRE DE RAMA,
IGNACIO DE VERA, MODESTO DIZON, REYNALDO
DIZON, ANTONIO S. DOMINGUEZ, GILBERT EBRADA,
RICARDO EBRADA, ANTONIO EJERCITO, JR.,
EDUARTE ERIDAO, ELADIO ESCOTOTO, JOHN
ESGUERRA, EDUARDO ESPIRITU, ERNESTO
ESPIRITU, RODOLFO ESPIRITU, NESTOR M. ESTEVA,
BENJAMIN ESTRADA, VALERIO EVANGELISTA,
OLIGARIO FRANCISCO, JESUS GABAWAN, ROLANDO
GARCIA, ANGEL GUDA, PACITO HERNANDEZ,
ANTONIO HILARIO, HENRY L. JACOB, HONESTO
JARDINIANO, ANTONIO JOCSON, GERARDO
LACSAMANA, EFREN U. LIRIO, LORETO LONTOC,
ISRAEL LORENZO, ALENJANDRO LORINO, JOSE
MABALAY, HERMIE MARANAN, LEOVIGILDO
MARCIAL, NOEL MARTINEZ, DANTE MATREO,
LUCIANO MELENDEZ, RENATO MELO, FRANCIS
MEDIODIA, JOSE C. MILANES, RAYMUNDO C. MILAY,
CRESENCIANO MIRANDA,
723
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 723

ILDEFONSO C. MOLINA, ARMANDO B. MONDEJAR,

RESURRECCION D. NAZARENO, JUAN OLINDO,
FRANCISCO R. OLIVARES, PEDRO ORBISTA, JR.,
RICARDO ORDONEZ, ERNIE PANCHO, JOSE PANCHO,
GORGONIO P. PARALA, MODESTO PINPIN, JUANITO
PAREA, ROMEO I. PATAG, FRANCISCO PINPIN,
LEONARDO POBLETE, JAIME POLLOS, DOMINGO
PONDALIS, EUGENIO RAMIREZ, LUCIEN M.
RESPALL, GAUDENCIO RETANAN, JR., TOMAS B.
RETENER, ALVIN C. REYES, RIZALINO REYES,
SOLOMON B. REYES, VIRGILIO G. RICAZA, RODELIO
RIETA, JR., BENITO RIVERA, JR., BERNARDO J.
ROBILLOS, PABLO A. ROBLES, JOSE ROBLEZA,
QUIRINO RONQUILLO, AVELINO M. ROQUE,
MENANDRO L. SABINO, PEDRO SALGATAR,
EDGARDO SALONGA, NUMERIANO SAN MATEO,
FELIZARDO DE LOS SANTOS, JR., GABRIEL SANTOS,
JUANITO SANTOS, PAQUITO SOLANTE, CONRADO A.
SOLIS, JR., RODOLFO SULTAN, ISAIAS TALACTAC,
WILLIAM TARUC, MENANDRO TEMPROSA,
BIENVENIDO S. TOLENTINO, BENEDICTO TORRES,
MAXIMIANO TORRES, FRANCISCO G. TRIAS, SERGIO
A. URSOLINO, ROGELIO VALDEZ, LEGORIO E.
VERGARA, DELFIN VICTORIA, GILBERT VICTORIA,
HERNANE VICTORIANO, FRANCISCO VILLAFLORES,
DOMINGO VILLAHERMOSA, ROLANDO VILLALOBOS,
ANTONIO VILLAUZ, DANILO VILLANUEVA, ROGELIO
VILLANUEVA, ANGEL VILLARBA, JUANITO
VILLARINO, FRANCISCO ZARA, ROGELIO AALAGOS,
NICANOR B. ABAD, ANDRES ABANES, REYNALDO
ABANES, EDUARDO ABANTE, JOSE ABARRO,
JOSEFINO ABARRO, CELSO S. ABELANIO, HERMINIO
ABELLA, MIGUEL ABESTANO, RODRIGO G. ABUBO,
JOSE B. ABUSTAN, DANTE ACERES, REYNALDO S.
ACOJIDO, LEOWILIN ACTA, EUGENIO C. ACUEZA,
EDUARDO ACUPAN, REYNALDO ACUPAN, SOLANO
ACUPAN, MANUEL P. ADANA, FLORENTINO R. AGNE,
QUITERIO R. AGUDO, MANUEL P. AGUINALDO,
DANTE AGUIRRE, HERMINIO AGUIRRE, GONZALO
ALBERTO, JR., CONRADO ALCANTARA, LAMBERTO Q.
ALCANTARA, MARIANITO J. ALCANTARA, BENCIO
ALDOVER, EULALIO V. ALEJANDRO, BENJAMIN
ALEJANDRO, EDUARDO L. ALEJANDRO, MAXIMINO
ALEJANDRO, ALBERTO
724

ALMENAR, ARNALDO ALONZO, AMADO ALORIA,
CAMILO ALVAREZ, MANUEL C. ALVAREZ, BENJAMIN
R. AMBROCIO, CARLOS AMORES, BERNARD P.
ANCHETA, TIMOTEO O. ANCHETA, JEOFREY ANI,
ELINO P. ANTILLON, ARMANDRO B. ANTIPONO,
LARRY T. ANTONIO, ANTONIO APILADO, ARTURO P.
APILADO, FRANCISCO APOLINARIO, BARTOLOME M.
AQUINO, ISIDRO AQUINO, PASTOR AQUINO,
ROSENDO M. AQUINO, ROBERTO ARANGORIN,
BENJAMIN O. ARATEA, ARTURO V. ARAULLO,
PRUDENCIO ARAULLO, ALEXANDER ARCAIRA,
FRANCISCO ARCIAGA, JOSE AREVALO, JUANTO
AREVALO, RAMON AREVALO, RODOLFO AREVALO,
EULALIO ARGUELLES, WILFREDO P. ARICA, JOSE M.
ADESILLO, ANTONIO ASUNCION, ARTEMIO M.
ASUNCION, EDGARDO ASUNCION, REXY M.
ASUNCION, VICENTE AURELIO, ANGEL AUSTRIA,
RICARDO P. AVERILLA, JR., VIRGILIO AVILA,
BARTOLOME AXALAN, ALFREDO BABILONIA,
FELIMON BACAL, JOSE L. BACANI, ROMULO R.
BALBIERAN, VICENTE BALBIERAN, RODOLFO
BALITBIT, TEODORO Y. BALOBO, DANILO O. BARBA,
BERNARDO BARRO, JUAN A. BASILAN, CEFERINO
BATITIS, VIVENCIO C. BAUAN, GAUDENCIO S.
BAUTISTA, LEONARDO BAUTISTA, JOSE D.
BAUTISTA, ROSTICO BAUTISTA, RUPERTO B.
BAUTISTA, TEODORO S. BAUTISTA, VIRGILIO
BAUTISTA, JESUS R. BAYA, WINIEFREDO BAYACAL,
WINIEFREDO BEBIT, BEN G. BELIR, ERIC B.
BELTRAN, EMILIANO BENALES, JR., RAUL BENITEZ,
PERFECTO BENSAN, IRENEO BERGONIO, ISABELO
BERMUDEZ, ROLANDO I. BERMUDEZ, DANILO
BERON, BENJAMIN BERSAMIN, ANGELITO BICOL,
ANSELMO BICOL, CELESTINO BICOL, JR.,
FRANCISCO BICOL, ROGELIO BICOL, ROMULO L.
BICOL, ROGELIO BILLIONES, TEOFILO N. BITO,
FERNANDO BLANCO, AUGUSTO BONDOC, DOMINGO
BONDOC, PEPE S. BOOC, JAMES R. BORJA,
WILFREDO BRACEROS, ANGELES C. BRECINO,
EURECLYDON G. BRIONES, AMADO BRUGE, PABLITO
BUDILLO, ARCHIMEDES BUENAVENTURA, BASILIO
BUENAVENTURA, GUILLERMO BUENCONSEJO,
ALEXANDER BUSTAMANTE, VIRGILIO BUTIONG, JR.,
HONESTO P. CABALLA, DELFIN CABALLERO,
BENEDICTO CABANIGAN, MOISES CABATAY,
HERMANELI CABRERA,
725
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 725
PEDRO CAGATAN, JOVEN C. CAGAYAT, ROGELIO L.

CALAGOS, REYNALDO V. CALDEJON, OSCAR C.
CALDERON, NESTOR D. CALLEJA, RENATO R.
CALMA, NELSON T. CAMACHO, SANTOS T.
CAMACHO, ROBERTO CAMANA, FLORANTE C.
CAMANAG, EDGARDO M. CANDA, SEVERINO
CANTOS, EPIFANIO A. CAPONPON, ELIAS D.
CARILLO, JR., ARMANDO CARREON, MENANDRO M.
CASTANEDA, BENIGNO A. CASTILLO, CORNELIO L.
CASTILLO, JOSEPH B. CASTILLO, ANSELMO
CASTILLO, JOAQUIN CASTILLO, PABLO L. CASTILLO,
ROMEO P. CASTILLO, SESINANDO CATIBOG, DANILO
CASTRO, PRUDENCIO A. CASTRO, RAMO CASTRO,
JR., ROMEO A. DE CASTRO, JAIME B. CATLI, DURANA
D. CEFERINO, RODOLFO B. CELIS, HERMINIGILDO
CEREZO, VICTORIANO CELESTINO, BENJAMIN
CHAN, ANTONIO C. CHUA, VIVENCIO B. CIABAL,
RODRIGO CLARETE, AUGUSTO COLOMA, TURIANO
CONCEPCION, TERESITO CONSTANTINO, ARMANDO
CORALES, RENATO C. CORCUERA, APOLINAR
CORONADO, ABELARDO CORONEL, FELIX CORONEL,
JR., LEONARDO CORPUZ, JESUS M. CORRALES,
CESAR CORTEMPRATO, FRANCISCO O. CORVERA,
FRANCISCO COSTALES, SR., CELEDONIO CREDITO,
ALBERTO A. CREUS, ANACLETO V. CRUZ, DOMINGO
DELA CRUZ, EMILIANO DELA CRUZ, JR., PANCHITO
CRUZ, REYNALDO B. DELA CRUZ, ROBERTO P. CRUZ,
TEODORO S. CRUZ, ZOSIMO DELA CRUZ, DIONISIO A.
CUARESMA, FELIMON CUIZON, FERMIN DAGONDON,
RICHARD DAGUINSIN, CRISANTO A. DATAY, NICASIO
DANTINGUINOO, JOSE DATOON, EDUARDO DAVID,
ENRICO T. DAVID, FAVIO DAVID, VICTORIANO S.
DAVID, EDGARDO N. DAYACAP, JOSELITO T.
DELOSO, CELERINO DE GUZMAN, ROMULO DE
GUZMAN, LIBERATO DE GUZMAN, JOSE DE LEON,
JOSELITO L. DE LUMBAN, NAPOLEON S. DE LUNA,
RICARDO DE RAMA, GENEROSO DEL ROSARIO,
ALBERTO DELA CRUZ, JOSE DELA CRUZ, LEONARDO
DELOS REYES, ERNESTO F. DIATA, EDUARDO A.
DIAZ, FELIX DIAZ, MELCHOR DIAZ, NICANOR S. DIAZ,
GERARDO C. DIGA, CLEMENTE DIMATULAC,
ROLANDO DIONISIO, PHILIPP G. DISMAYA,
BENJAMIN DOCTOLERO, ALBERTO STO. DOMINGO,
BENJAMIN E. DOZA, BENJAMIN
726

DUPA, DANILO C. DURAN, GREGORIO D. DURAN,

RENATO A. EDUARTE, GODOFREDO E. EISMA,
ARDON B. ELLO, UBED B. ELLO, JOSEFINO ENANO,
REYNALDO ENCARNACION, EDGARDO ENGUANCIO,
ELIAS EQUIPANO, FELIZARDO ESCARMOSA, MIGUEL
ESCARMOSA, ARMANDO ESCOBAR, ROMEO T.
ESCUYOS, ANGELITO ESPIRITU, EDUARDO S.
ESPIRITU, REYNALDO ESPIRITU, ROLANDO
ESPIRITU, JULIAN ESPREGANTE, IGMIDIO
ESTANISLAO, ERNESTO M. ESTEBAN, MELANIO R.
ESTRO, ERNESTO M. ESTEVA, CONRADO ESTUAR,
CLYDE ESTUYE, ELISEO FAJARDO, PORFIRIO
FALQUEZA, WILFREDO P. FAUSTINO, EMILIO E.
FERNANDEZ, ARTEMIO FERRER, MISAEL M.
FIGURACION, ARMANDO F. FLORES, BENJAMIN
FLORES, EDGARDO C. FLORES, BUENAVENTURA
FRANCISCO, MANUEL S. FRANCISCO, ROLANDO
FRANCISCO, VALERIANO FRANCISCO, RODOLFO
GABAWAN, ESMERALDO GAHUTAN, CESAR C.
GALANG, SANTIAGO N. GALOSO, GABRIEL GAMBOA,
BERNARDO GANDAMON, JUAN GANZON, ANDRES
GARCIA, JR., ARMANDO M. GARCIA, EUGENIO
GARCIA, MARCELO L. GARCIA, PATRICIO L. GARCIA,
JR., PONCIANO G. GARCIA, PONCIANO G. GARCIA,
JR., RAFAEL P. GARCIA, ROBERTO S. GARCIA, OSIAS
G. GAROFIL, RAYMUNDO C. GARON, ROLANDO G.
GATELA, AVELINO GAYETA, RAYMUNDO GERON,
PLACIDO GONZALES, RUPERTO H. GONZALES,
ROGELIO D. GUANIO, MARTIN V. GUERRERO, JR.,
ALEXIS GUNO, RICARDO L. GUNO, FRANCISCO
GUPIT, DENNIS J. GUTIERREZ, IGNACIO B.
GUTIERREZ, ANGELITO DE GUZMAN, JR., CESAR H.
HABANA, RAUL G. HERNANDEZ, REYNALDO
HERNANDEZ, JOVENIANO D. HILADO, JUSTO
HILAPO, ROSTITO HINAHON, FELICISIMO HINGADA,
EDUARDO HIPOLITO, RAUL L. IGNACIO, MANUEL L.
ILAGAN, RENATO L. ILAGAN, CONRADO A. INSIONG,
GRACIANO G. ISLA, ARNEL L. JACOB, OSCAR J.
JAPITENGA, CIRILO HICBAN, MAXIMIANO
HONRADES, GENEROSO IGNACIO, FELIPE ILAGAN,
EXPEDITO N. JACOB, MARIO JASMIN, BIENVENIDO
JAVIER, ROMEO M. JAVIER, PRIMO DE JESUS,
REYNALDO DE JESUS, CARLOS A. JIMENEZ, DANILO
E. JIMENEZ, PEDRO C. JOAQUIN, FELIPE W. JOCSON,
FELINO M. JOCSON, PEDRO N.
727
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 727

JOCSON, VALENTINO S. JOCSON, PEDRO B. JOLOYA,

ESTEBAN P. JOSE, JR., RAUL JOSE, RICARDO SAN
JOSE, GERTRUDO KABIGTING, EDUARDO S.
KOLIMLIM, SR., LAURO J. LABAY, EMMANUEL C.
LABELLA, EDGARDO B. LACERONA, JOSE B. LACSON,
MARIO J. LADINES, RUFINO LAGAC, RODRIGO
LAGANAPAN, EFREN M. LAMADRID, GAUDENCIO
LATANAN, VIRGILIO LATAYAN, EMILIANO LATOJA,
WENCESLAO LAUREL, ALFREDO LAXAMANA,
DANIEL R. LAZARO, ANTONIO C. LEANO, ARTURO S.
LEGASPI, BENITO DE LEMOS, JR., PEDRO G. DE
LEON, MANOLITO C. LILOC, GERARDO LIMUACO,
ERNESTO S. LISING, RENATO LISING, WILFEREDO S.
LISING, CRISPULO LONTOC, PEDRO M. LOPERA,
ROGELIO LOPERA, CARLITO M. LOPEZ, CLODY
LOPEZ, GARLITO LOPEZ, GEORGE F. LOPEZ,
VIRGILIO M. LOPEZ, BERNARDITO G. LOREJA,
DOMINGO B. LORICO, DOMINGO LOYOLA, DANTE
LUAGE, ANTONIO M. LUALHATI, EMMANUEL
LUALHATI, JR., LEONIDEZ C. LUALHATI, SEBASTIAN
LUALHATI, FRANCISCO LUBAT, ARMANDO LUCERO,
JOSELITO L. DE LUMBAN, THOMAS VICENTE O.
LUNA, NOLI MACALADLAD, ALFREDO MACALINO,
RICARDO MACALINO, ARTURO V. MACARAIG,
ERNESTO V. MACARAIG, RODOLFO V. MACARAIG,
BENJAMIN MACATANGAY, HERMOGENES
MACATANGAY, RODEL MACATANGAY, ROMULO
MACATANGAY, OSIAS Q. MADLANGBAYAN, NICOLAS
P. MADRID, EDELBERTO G. MAGAT, EFREN C.
MAGBANUA, BENJAMIN MAGBUHAT, ALFREDO C.
MAGCALENG, ANTONIO MAGNAYE, ALFONSO
MAGPANTAY, RICARDO C. MAGPANTAY, SIMEON M.
MAGPANTAY, ARMANDO M. MAGSINO, MACARIO S.
MAGSINO, ANTONIO MAGTIBAY, VICTOR V.
MAGTIBAY, GERONIMO MAHILUM, MANUEL
MALONZO, RICARDO MAMADIS, RODOLFO MANA,
BERNARDO A. MANALILI, MANUEL MANALILI,
ANGELO MANALO, AGUILES L. MANALO, LEOPOLDO
MANGAHAS, BAYANI MANIGBAS, ROLANDO C.
MANIMTIM, DANIEL MANONSON, ERNESTO F.
MANUEL, EDUARDO MANZANO, RICARDO N. MAPA,
RAMON MAPILE, ROBERTO C. MARANA, NEMESIO
MARASIGAN, WENCESLAO MARASIGAN, LEONARDO
MARCELO, HENRY F. MARIANO, JOEL MARIDABLE,
728

SANTOS E. MARINO, NARCISO A. MARQUEZ,

RICARDO MARTINEZ, DIEGO MASICAMPO, AURELIO
MATABERDE, RENATO MATILLA, VICTORIANO
MATILLA, VIRGILIO MEDEL, LOLITO M. MELECIO,
BENIGNO MELENDEZ, RENER J. MEMIJE,
REYNALDO F. MEMIJE, RODEL MEMIJE, AVELINO
MENDOZA, JR., CLARO MENDOZA, TIMOTEO
MENDOZA, GREGORIO MERCADO, ERNANI DELA
MERCED, RICARDO MERCENA, NEMESIO
METRELLO, RODEL MEMIJE, GASPAR MINIMO,
BENJAMIN MIRANDA, FELIXBERTO D. MISA,
CLAUDIO A. MODESTO, JR., OSCAR MONDEDO,
GENEROSO MONTON, RENATO MORADA, RICARDO
MORADA, RODOLFO MORADA, ROLANDO M.
MORALES, FEDERICO M. MORENO, VICTORINO A.
MORTEL, JR., ESPIRITU A. MUNOZ, IGNACIO MUNOZ,
ILDEFONSO MUNOZ, ROGELIO MUNOZ, ERNESTO
NAPALAN, MARCELO A. NARCIZO, REYNALDO
NATALIA, FERNANDO C. NAVARETTE, PACIFICO D.
NAVARRO, FLORANTE NAZARENO, RIZAL B.
NAZARIO, JOSUE NEGRITE, ALFREDO
NEPUMUCENO, HERBERT G. NG, FLORENCIO
NICOLAS, ERNESTO C. NINON, AVELINO NUQUI,
NEMESIO D. OBA, DANILO OCAMPO, EDGARDO
OCAMPO, RODRIGO E. OCAMPO, ANTONIO B.
OCCIANO, REYNALDO P. OCSON, BENJAMIN ODESA,
ANGEL OLASO, FRANCISCO OLIGARIO, ZOSIMO
OLIMBO, BENJAMIN V. ORALLO, ROMEO S.
ORIGINES, DANILO R. ORTANEZ, WILFREDO OSIAS,
VIRGILIO PA-A, DAVID PAALAN, JESUS N. PACHECO,
ALFONSO L. PADILLA, DANILO PAGSANJAN,
NUMERIANO PAGSISIHAN, RICARDO T. PAGUIO,
EMILIO PAKINGAN, LEANDRO PALABRICA,
QUINCIANO PALO, JOSE PAMATIAN, GONZALO PAN,
PORFIRIO PAN, BIENVENIDO PANGAN, ERNESTO
PANGAN, FRANCISCO V. PASIA, EDILBERTO
PASIMIO, JR., JOSE V. PASION, ANGELITO M. PENA,
DIONISIO PENDRAS, HERMINIO PERALTA,
REYNALDO M. PERALTA, ANTONIO PEREZ,
ANTOLIANO E. PEREZ, JUAN PEREZ, LEON PEREZ,
ROMEO E. PEREZ, ROMULO PEREZ, WILLIAM PEREZ,
FERNANDO G. PERINO, FLORENTINO DEL PILAR,
DELMAR F. PINEDA, SALVADOR PINEDA, ELIZALDE
PINPIN, WILFREDO PINPIN, ARTURO POBLETE,
DOMINADOR R. PRIELA, BUENAVENTURA
PRUDENTE, CARMELITO PRUDENTE,
729
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 729

DANTE PUEYO, REYNALDO Q. PUEYO, RODOLFO O.

PULIDO, ALEJANDRO PUNIO, FEDERICO QUIMAN,
ALFREDO L. QUINTO, ROMEO QUINTOS, EDUARDO
W. RACABO, RICARDO C. DE RAMA, RICARDO L. DE
RAMA, ROLANDO DE RAMA, FERNANDO A. RAMIREZ,
LITO S. RAMIREZ, RICARDO G. RAMIREZ, RODOLFO
V. RAMIREZ, ALBERTO RAMOS, ANSELMO C. RAMOS,
TOBIAS RAMOS, WILLARFREDO RAYMUNDO,
REYNADO RAQUEDAN, MANUEL F. RAVELAS,
WILFREDO D. RAYMUNDO, ERNESTO E. RECOLASO,
ALBERTO REDAZA, ARTHUR REJUSO, TORIBIO M.
RELLAMA, JAIME RELLOSA, EUGENIO A.
REMOQUILLO, GERARDO RENTOZA, REDENTOR C.
REY, ALFREDO S. REYES, AMABLE S. REYES,
BENEDICTO R. REYES, GREGORIO B. REYES, JOSE A.
REYES, JOSE C. REYES, ROMULO M. REYES, SERGIO
REYES, ERNESTO F. RICO, FERNANDO M. RICO,
EMMANUEL RIETA, RICARDO RIETA, LEO B. ROBLES,
RUBEN ROBLES, RODOLFO ROBLEZA, RODRIGO
ROBLEZA, EDUARDO ROCABO, ANTONIO R.
RODRIGUEZ, BERNARDO RODRIGUEZ, ELIGIO
RODRIGUEZ, ALMONTE ROMEO, ELIAS RONQUILLO,
ELISE RONQUILLO, LUIS VAL B. RONQUILLO,
REYNOSO P. RONQUILLO, RODOLFO RONQUILLO,
ANGEL ROSALES, RAMON ROSALES, ALBERTO DEL
ROSARIO, GENEROSO DEL ROSARIO, TEODORICO
DEL ROSARIO, VIRGILIO L. ROSARIO, CARLITO
SALVADOR, JOSE SAMPARADA, ERNESTO SAN
PEDRO, ADRIANO V. SANCHA, GERONIMO M.
SANCHA, ARTEMIO B. SANCHEZ, NICASIO SANCHEZ,
APOLONIO P. SANTIAGO, JOSELITO S. SANTIAGO,
SERGIO SANTIAGO, EDILBERTO C. SANTOS, EFREN
S. SANTOS, RENATO D. SANTOS, MIGUEL SAPUYOT,
ALEX S. SERQUINA, DOMINADOR P. SERRA, ROMEO
SIDRO, AMADO M. SILANG, FAUSTINO D. SILANG,
RODOLFO B. DE SILOS, ANICETO G. SILVA, EDGARDO
M. SILVA, ROLANDO C. SILVERTO, ARTHUR B.
SIMBAHON, DOMINGO SOLANO, JOSELITO C.
SOLANTE, CARLITO SOLIS, CONRADO SOLIS, III,
EDGARDO SOLIS, ERNESTO SOLIS, ISAGANI M.
SOLIS, EDUARDO L. SOTTO, ERNESTO G. STA. MARIA,
VICENTE G. STELLA, FELIMON SUPANG, PETER
TANGUINOO, MAXIMINO TALIBSAO, FELICISMO P.
TALUSIK, FERMIN TARUC, JR.,
730

LEVY S. TEMPLO, RODOLFO S. TIAMSON, LEONILO

TIPOSO, ARNEL TOLENTINO, MARIO M. TOLENTINO,
FELIPE TORRALBA, JOVITO V. TORRES, LEONARDO
DE TORRES, GAVINO U. TUAZON, AUGUSTO B.
TUNGUIA, FRANCISCO UMALI, SIMPLICIO UNIDA,
WILFREDO V. UNTALAN, ANTONIO VALDERAMA,
RAMON VALDERAMA, NILO VALENCIANO, EDGARDO
C. VASQUEZ, ELPIDIO VELASQUEZ, NESTOR DE
VERA, WILFREDO D. VERA, BIENVENIDO VERGARA,
ALFREDO VERGARA, RAMON R. VERZOSA, FELICITO
P. VICMUNDO, ALFREDO VICTORIANO, TEOFILO P.
VIDALLO, SABINO N. VIERNEZ, JESUS J. VILLA,
JOVEN VILLABLANCO, EDGARDO G. VILLAFLORES,
CEFERINO VILLAGERA, ALEX VILLAHERMOZA,
DANILO A. VILLANUEVA, ELITO VILLANUEVA,
LEONARDO M. VILLANUEVA, MANUEL R.
VILLANUEVA, NEPTHALI VILLAR, JOSE V.
VILLAREAL, FELICISIMO VILLARINO, RAFAEL
VILLAROMAN, CARLOS VILLENA, FERDINAND VIVO,
ROBERTO YABUT, VICENTE YNGENTE, AND ORO C.
ZUNIGA, respondents.
Conflict of Laws; As a general rule, a foreign procedural law

will not be applied in the forum.—As a general rule, a foreign
procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural
matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and
requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the
forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign
substantive law (Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, Sec. 685;
Salonga, Private International Law, 131 [1979]).
Same; Prescription; A law on prescription of actions is sui
generis in Conflict of Laws.—A law on prescription of actions is
sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed
either as procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization given such a law. Thus in Bournias v. Atlantic
Maritime Company, supra, the American court applied the statute
of limitations of New York, instead of the Panamanian law, after
finding that there was no showing that the Panamanian law on
prescription was intended to be substantive. Being considered
merely a procedural law even in Panama, it has to give way to the
law of the forum on prescription of actions.
Same; Same; Actions; Words and Phrases; “Borrowing
Statute,” Explained; One form of “borrowing statutes” provides
that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued,
will not be enforced in
731
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 731
the forum even though the local statute has not run against it.—
However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or
substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum
has a “borrowing statute.” Said statute has the practical effect of
treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance
(Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 152-153 [1938]). A “borrowing statute”
directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of
limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law (Siegel,
Conflicts 183 [1975]). While there are several kinds of “borrowing
statutes,” one form provides that an action barred by the laws of
the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even
though the local statute has not run against it (Goodrich and
Scoles, Conflict of Laws, 152-153 [1938]). Section 48 of our Code of
Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: “If by the
laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the
action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine Islands.”
Same; Same; Same; Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code.—Section 48
has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed only those
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to which were
inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which is inconsistent with or contradictory to Section
48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Paras, Philippine Conflict of
Laws, 104 [7th ed.]).
Same; Same; Labor Law; The courts of the forum will not
enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.—
In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot
be enforced ex proprio vigore insofar as it ordains the application
in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of
1976. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forum’s public policy (Canadian Northern
Railway Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 40 S. Ct. 402, 64 L. ed. 713
[1920]). To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri
Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would
contravene the public policy on the protection to labor.
Labor Law; Overseas Contract Workers; Prescription; Article
291 of the Labor Code applies to money claims arising from
employer-employee relations, including those arising from
application of foreign laws providing for greater employee benefits.
—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-
732
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.
No. 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.
Same; Same; Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases; “Speedy
disposition of cases” is a relative term, a flexible concept consistent
with delays and depends upon the circumstances of each case.—It
is true that the constitutional right to “a speedy disposition of
cases” is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but
extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and
administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial
and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any
party to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials who
are tasked with the administration of justice. However, as held in
Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr., 153 SCRA 153 (1987), “speedy
disposition of cases” is a relative term. Just like the constitutional
guarantee of “speedy trial” accorded to the accused in all criminal
proceedings, “speedy disposition of cases” is a flexible concept. It
is consistent with delays and depends upon the circumstances of
each case. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable,
arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.
Same; Same; Same; Even if the cases took seven years to be
disposed of in the administrative level there is no violation of the
constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases where the cases
are not of the run-of-the-mill variety, involve a total of 1,767
claimants hired on various dates, with claims totalling more than
US$65 million.—The cases at bench are not of the run-of-the-mill
variety, such that their final disposition in the administrative
level after seven years from their inception, cannot be said to be
attended by unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays as to
violate the constitutional rights to a speedy disposition of the
cases of complainants. The amended complaint filed on June 6,
1984 involved a total of 1,767 claimants. Said complaint had
undergone several amendments, the first being on April 3, 1985.
The claimants were hired on various dates from 1975 to 1983.
They were deployed in different areas, one group in and the other
groups outside of, Bahrain. The monetary claims totalled more
than US$65 million.
733
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 733
Same; Same; Actions; Class Suits; Where the claims are for
benefits granted under the Bahrain law, only the claimants who
worked in Bahrain shall be entitled to file their claims in a class
suit, excluding those who worked elsewhere.—A class suit is
proper where the subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many and the parties are so
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
court (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 12). While all the
claims are for benefits granted under the Bahrain law, many of
the claimants worked outside Bahrain. Some of the claimants
were deployed in Indonesia and Malaysia under different terms
and conditions of employment. NLRC and the POEA
Administrator are correct in their stance that inasmuch as the
first requirement of a class suit is not present (common or general
interest based on the Amiri Decree of the State of Bahrain), it is
only logical that only those who worked in Bahrain shall be
entitled to file their claims in a class suit.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A principle basic to the concept of
“class suit” is that plaintiffs brought on the record must fairly
represent and protect the interests of the others, such that if it
appears that each claimant is only interested in collecting his own
claims and has no concern in protecting the interests of the others,
the most that can be accorded to them is to be allowed to join as
plaintiffs in one complaint.—It appears that each claimant is only
interested in collecting his own claims. A claimant has no concern
in protecting the interests of the other claimants as shown by the
fact, that hundreds of them have abandoned their co-claimants
and have entered into separate compro-mise settlements of their
respective claims. A principle basic to the concept of “class suit” is
that plaintiffs brought on the record must fairly represent and
protect the interests of the others (Dimayuga v. Court of
Industrial Relations, 101 Phil. 590 [1957]). For this matter, the
claimants who worked in Bahrain can not be allowed to sue in a
class suit in a judicial proceeding. The most that can be accorded
to them under the Rules of Court is to be allowed to join as
plaintiffs in one complaint (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec.
6).
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court is extra-
cautious in allowing class suits because they are the exceptions to
the condition sine qua non, requiring the joinder of all
indispensable parties.—The Court is extra-cautious in allowing
class suits because they are the exceptions to the condition sine
qua non, requiring the joinder of all indispensable parties. In an
improperly instituted class suit, there would be no problem if the
decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs. The problem arises
when the decision is adverse to them, in which case the others
who were impleaded by their self-appointed representatives,
would surely claim denial of due process.
734
Actions; Forum Shopping; Before Administrative Circular No.

04-94, the Anti-Forum Shopping Rule (Revised Circular No. 28-
91) applied only to petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals.—The Anti-Forum Shopping Rule (Revised
Circular No. 28-91) is intended to put a stop to the practice of
some parties of filing multiple petitions and complaints involving
the same issues, with the result that the courts or agencies have
to resolve the same issues. Said Rule, however, applies only to
petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
It is entitled “Additional Requirements For Petitions Filed with
the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals To Prevent Forum
Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitioners and Complainants.”
The first sentence of the circular expressly states that said
circular applies to and governs the filing of petitions in the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. While Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 extended the application of the anti-forum
shopping rule to the lower courts and administrative agencies,
said circular took effect only on April 1, 1994.
Jurisdiction; Legal Ethics; Attorneys; The NLRC and the
POEA have no jurisdiction to investigate charges of unethical
conduct of lawyers.—POEA and NLRC could not have entertained
the complaint for unethical conduct against Atty. De Castro
because NLRC and POEA have no jurisdiction to investigate
charges of unethical conduct of lawyers.
Same; Same; Same; Complaints for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility should be filed in a separate and
appropriate proceeding.—The complaint of Atty. Gerardo A. Del
Mundo to cite Atty. Florante De Castro and Atty. Katz Tierra for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility should be filed
in a separate and appropriate proceeding.
Same; Attorney’s Liens; A statement of a claim for a charging
lien should be filed with the court or administrative agency which
renders and executes the money judgment.—A statement of a
claim for a charging lien shall be filed with the court or
administrative agency which renders and executes the money
judgment secured by the lawyer for his clients. The lawyer shall
cause written notice thereof to be delivered to his clients and to
the adverse party (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 37). The
statement of the claim for the charging lien of Atty. Del Mundo
should have been filed with the administrative agency that
rendered and executed the judgment.
Evidence; Conflict of Laws; Administrative Law; An official
document from a foreign government can be admitted in evidence
in
735
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 735
proceedings before an administrative body even without observing

the rule provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the 1989 Revised Rules
on Evidence.—Claimants presented a Memorandum of the
Ministry of Labor of Bahrain dated April 16, 1983. While said
document was presented to the POEA without observing the rule
on presenting official documents of a foreign government as
provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the 1989 Revised Rules on
Evidence, it can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an
administrative body. The opposing parties have a copy of the said
memorandum, and they could easily verify its authenticity and
accuracy.
Same; Offer to Compromise; In civil cases, an offer to settle a
claim is not an admission that anything is due and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror.—The admissibility of
the offer of compromise made by BRII as contained in the
memorandum is another matter. Under Section 27, Rule 130 of
the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, an offer to settle a claim is
not an admission that anything is due. Said Rule provides: “Offer
of compromise not admissible.—In civil cases, an offer of
compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror.” This Rule is not only a
rule of procedure to avoid the cluttering of the record with
unwanted evidence but a statement of public policy. There is
great public interest in having the protagonists settle their
differences amicably before these ripen into litigation. Every
effort must be taken to encourage them to arrive at a settlement.
The submission of offers and counter-offers in the negotiation
table is a step in the right direction. But to bind a party to his
offers, as what claimants would make this Court do, would defeat
the salutary purpose of the Rule.
Contracts; Overseas Contract Workers; Any ambiguity in the
overseas-employment contracts should be interpreted against the
parties who drafted them.—The overseas-employment contracts
could have been drafted more felicitously. While a part thereof
provides that the compensation to the employee may be “adjusted
downward so that the total computation (thereunder) plus the
non-waivable benefits shall be equivalent to the compensation”
therein agreed, another part of the same provision categorically
states “that total remuneration and benefits do not fall below that
of the host country regulation and custom.” Any ambiguity in the
overseas-employment contracts should be interpreted against
AIBC and BRII, the parties that drafted it (Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union, 93 SCRA 257 [1979]).
Same; Conflict of Laws; Parties to a contract may select the
law by which it is to be governed, and instead of adopting the
entire mass of the foreign law, the parties may just agree that
specific provisions of a
736
foreign statute shall be deemed incorporated into their contract “as

a set of terms.”—The parties to a contract may select the law by
which it is to be governed (Cheshire, Private International Law,
187 [7th ed.]). In such a case, the foreign law is adopted as a
“system” to regulate the relations of the parties, including
questions of their capacity to enter into the contract, the
formalities to be observed by them, matters of performance, and
so forth (16 Am Jur 2d, 150-161). Instead of adopting the entire
mass of the foreign law, the parties may just agree that specific
provisions of a foreign statute shall be deemed incorporated into
their contract “as a set of terms.” By such reference to the
provisions of the foreign law, the contract does not become a
foreign contract to be governed by the foreign law. The said law
does not operate as a statute but as a set of contractual terms
deemed written in the contract (Anton, Private International
Law, 197 [1967]; Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 702-703,
[8th ed.]).
Same; Same; The choice of law must, however, bear some
relationship to the parties or their transaction.—A basic policy of
contract is to protect the expectation of the parties (Reese, Choice
of Law in Torts and Contracts, 16 Columbia Journal of
Transnational Law 1, 21 [1977]). Such party expectation is
protected by giving effect to the parties’ own choice of the
applicable law (Fricke v. Isbrandtsen Co. Inc., 151 F. Supp. 465,
467 [1957]). The choice of law must, however, bear some
relationship to the parties or their transaction (Scoles and Hayes,
Conflict of Law, 644-647 [1982]). There is no question that the
contracts sought to be enforced by claimants have a direct
connection with the Bahrain law because the services were
rendered in that country.
Administrative Law; Due Process; There is no denial of due
process even if the respondents had no opportunity to refute the
evidence of the claimants before the POEA where they had all the
opportunity to rebut said evidence and to present their counter-
evidence before the NLRC.—NLRC noted that so many pieces of
evidentiary matters were submitted to the POEA Administrator
by the claimants after the cases were deemed submitted for
resolution and which were taken cognizance of by the POEA
Administrator in resolving the cases. While AIBC and BRII had
no opportunity to refute said evidence of the claimants before the
POEA Administrator, they had all the opportunity to rebut said
evidence and to present their counter-evidence before NLRC. As a
matter of fact, AIBC and BRII themselves were able to present
before NLRC additional evidence which they failed to present
before the POEA Administrator. Under Article 221 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines, NLRC is enjoined to “use every and all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and
objectively and without
737
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 737
regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of

due process.”
Same; Same; While technical rules of procedure and evidence
do not apply to the proceedings conducted by administrative
agencies, there are cardinal rules which must be observed by the
hearing officers in order to comply with the due process
requirements of the Constitution.—A principle well embedded in
Administrative Law is that the technical rules of procedure and
evidence do not apply to the proceedings conducted by
administrative agencies (First Asian Transport & Shipping
Agency Inc. v. Ople, 142 SCRA 542 [1986]; Asiaworld Publishing
House, Inc. v. Ople, 152 SCRA 219 [1987]). This principle is
enshrined in Article 221 of the Labor Code of the Philippines and
is now the bedrock of proceedings before NLRC. Notwithstanding
the non-applicability of technical rules of procedure and evidence
in administrative proceedings, there are cardinal rules which
must be observed by the hearing officers in order to comply with
the due process requirements of the Constitution. These cardinal
rules are collated in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69
Phil. 635 (1940).
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Gerardo A. Del Mundo and Associates for petitioners.
Romulo, Mabanta, Sayoc, Buenaventura, De los
Angeles Law Offices for BRII/AIBC.
Florante M. De Castro for private respondents in
105029-32.
QUIASON, J.:
The petition in G.R. No. 104776, entitled “Bienvenido M.

Cadalin, et al., v. Philippine Overseas Employment Admin-
istration’s Administrator, et al.,” was filed under Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court:
(1) to modify the Resolution dated September 2, 1991

of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) in POEA Cases Nos. L-84-06-555, L-85-10-
777, L-85-10-779 and L-86-05-460; 2) to render a
new decision: (i) declaring private respondents as in
default; (ii) declaring the said labor cases as a class
suit; (iii) ordering Asia International Builders
Corporation (AIBC) and Brown & Root
International Inc. (BRII) to pay the claims of the
738

1,767 claimants in said labor cases; (iv) declaring

Atty. Florante M. de Castro guilty of forum-
shopping; and (v) dismissing POEA Case No. L-86-
05-460; and
(3) to reverse the Resolution dated March 24, 1992 of
NLRC, denying the motion for reconsideration of its
Resolution dated September 2, 1991 (Rollo, pp. 8-
288).
The petition in G.R. Nos. 104911-14, entitled “Bienvenido

M. Cadalin, et al., v. Hon. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.,” was filed under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court:
(1) to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991

of NLRC in POEA Cases Nos. L-84-06-555, L-85-10-
777, L-85-10-799 and L-86-05-460 insofar as it: (i)
applied the three-year prescriptive period under the
Labor Code of the Philippines instead of the ten-
year prescriptive period under the Civil Code of the
Philippines; and (ii) denied the “three-hour daily
average” formula in the computation of petitioners’
overtime pay; and
NLRC, denying the motion for reconsideration of its
Resolution dated September 2, 1991 (Rollo, pp. 8-
25; 26-220).
The petition in G.R. Nos. 105029-32, entitled “Asia

International Builders Corporation, et al., v. National
Labor Relations Commission, et al.” was filed under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court:
(1) to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991

of NLRC in POEA Cases Nos. L-84-06-555, L-85-10-
777, L-85-10-779 and L-86-05-460, insofar as it
granted the claims of 149 claimants; and
NLRC insofar as it denied the motions for
reconsideration of AIBC and BRII (Rollo, pp. 2-59;
61-230).
The Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of NLRC, which

modified the decision of the POEA in the four labor cases:
(1) awarded monetary benefits only to 149 claimants and
(2) directed Labor Arbiter Fatima J. Franco to conduct
hearings and to receive evidence on the claims dismissed
by the POEA for lack of substantial evidence or proof of
employment.
Consolidation of Cases
G.R. Nos. 104776 and 105029-32 were originally raffled to

the Third Division while G.R. Nos. 104911-14 were raffled
to the
739
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 739

Second Division. In the Resolution dated July 26, 1993, the

Second Division referred G.R. Nos. 104911-14 to the Third
Division (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, p. 895).
In the Resolution dated September 29, 1993, the Third
Division granted the motion filed in G.R. Nos. 104911-14
for the consolidation of said cases with G.R. Nos. 104776
and 105029-32, which were assigned to the First Division
(G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 986, 1,107; G.R. Nos.
105029-32, Rollo, pp. 369-377, 426-432). In the Resolution
dated October 27, 1993, the First Division granted the
motion to consolidate G.R. Nos. 104911-14 with G.R. No.
104776 (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, p. 1109; G.R. Nos.
105029-32, Rollo, p. 1562).
On June 6, 1984, Bienvenido M. Cadalin, Rolando M. Amul

and Donato B. Evangelista, in their own behalf and on
behalf of 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 (POEA Case No. L-84-06-
555). 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 amended complaint principally 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 (G.R.
No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 13-14).
At the hearing on June 25, 1984, AIBC was furnished a
copy of the complaint and was given, together with BRII,
up to July 5,
740

1984 to file its answer.
On July 3, 1984, POEA Administrator, upon motion of
AIBC and BRII, ordered the claimants to file a bill of
particulars within ten days from receipt of the order and
the movants to file their answers within ten days from
receipt of the bill of particulars. The POEA Administrator
also scheduled a pre-trial conference on July 25, 1984.
On July 13, 1984, the claimants submitted their
“Compliance and Manifestation.” On July 23, 1984, AIBC
filed a “Motion to Strike Out of the Records” the
“Complaint” and the “Compliance and Manifestation .” On
July 25, 1984, the claimants filed their “Rejoinder and
Comments,” averring, among other matters, the failure of
AIBC and BRII to file their answers and to attend the pre-
trial conference on July 25, 1984. The claimants alleged
that AIBC and BRII had waived their right to present
evidence and had defaulted by failing to file their answers
and to attend the pre-trial conference.
On October 2, 1984, the POEA Administrator denied the
“Motion to Strike Out of the Records” filed by AIBC but
required the claimants to correct the deficiencies in the
complaint pointed out in the order.
On October 10, 1984, claimants asked for time within
which to comply with the Order of October 2, 1984 and filed
an “Urgent Manifestation,” praying that the POEA
Administrator direct the parties to submit simultaneously
their position papers, after which the case should be
deemed submitted for decision. On the same day, Atty.
Florante de Castro filed another complaint for the same
money claims and benefits in behalf of several claimants,
some of whom were also claimants in POEA Case No. L-84-
06-555 (POEA Case No. 85-10-779).
On October 19, 1984, claimants filed their “Compliance”
with the Order dated October 2, 1984 and an “Urgent
Manifestation,” praying that the POEA direct the parties to
submit simultaneously their position papers after which
the case would be deemed submitted for decision. On the
same day, AIBC asked for time to file its comment on the
“Compliance” and “Urgent Manifestation” of claimants. On
November 6, 1984, it filed a second motion for extension of
time to file the comment.
On November 8, 1984, the POEA Administrator
informed AIBC that its motion for extension of time was
granted.
741
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 741

On November 14, 1984, claimants filed an opposition to the

motions for extension of time and asked that AIBC and
BRII be declared in default for failure to file their answers.
On November 20, 1984, AIBC and BRII filed a
“Comment” praying, among other reliefs, that claimants
should be ordered to amend their complaint.
On December 27, 1984, the POEA Administrator issued
an order directing AIBC and BRII to file their answers
within ten days from receipt of the order.
On February 27, 1985, AIBC and BRII appealed to
NLRC seeking the reversal of the said order of the POEA
Administrator. Claimants opposed the appeal, claiming
that it was dilatory and praying that AIBC and BRII be
declared in default.
On April 2, 1985, the original claimants filed an
“Amended Complaint and/or Position Paper” dated March
24, 1985, adding new demands: namely, the payment of
overtime pay, extra night work pay, annual leave
differential pay, leave indemnity pay, retirement and
savings benefits and their share of forfeitures (G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp. 14-16). On April 15, 1985, the POEA
Administrator directed AIBC to file its answer to the
amended complaint (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, p. 20).
On May 28, 1985, claimants filed an “Urgent Motion For
Summary Judgment.” On the same day, the POEA issued
an order directing AIBC and BRII to file their answers to
the “Amended Complaint,” otherwise, they would be
deemed to have waived their right to present evidence and
the case would be resolved on the basis of complainants’
evidence.
On June 5, 1985, AIBC countered with a “Motion to
Dismiss as Improper Class Suit and Motion for Bill of
Particulars Re: Amended Complaint dated March 24,
1985.” Claimants opposed the motions.
On September 4, 1985, the POEA Administrator
reiterated his directive to AIBC and BRII to file their
answers in POEA Case No. L-84-06-555.
On September 18, 1985, AIBC filed its second appeal to
the NLRC, together with a petition for the issuance of a
writ of injunction. On September 19, 1985, NLRC enjoined
the POEA Administrator from hearing the labor cases and
suspended the period for the filing of the answers of AIBC
and BRII.
742
On September 19, 1985, claimants asked the POEA

Administrator to include additional claimants in the case
and to investigate alleged wrongdoings of BRII, AIBC and
their respective lawyers.
On October 10, 1985, Romeo Patag and two co-claimants
filed a complaint (POEA Case No. L-85-10-777) against
AIBC and BRII with the POEA, demanding monetary
claims similar to those subject of POEA Case No. L-84-06-
555. In the same month, Solomon Reyes also filed his own
complaint (POEA Case No. L-85-10-779) against AIBC and
BRII.
On October 17, 1985, the law firm of Florante M. de
Castro & Associates asked for the substitution of the
original counsel of record and the cancellation of the special
powers of attorney given the original counsel.
On December 12, 1985, Atty. Del Mundo filed in NLRC a
notice of the claim to enforce attorney’s lien.
On May 29, 1986, Atty. De Castro filed a complaint for
money claims (POEA Case No. 86-05-460) in behalf of 11
claimants including Bienvenido Cadalin, a claimant in
POEA Case No. 84-06-555.
On December 12, 1986, NLRC dismissed the two appeals
filed on February 27, 1985 and September 18, 1985 by
AIBC and BRII. In narrating the proceedings of the labor
cases before the POEA Administrator, it is not amiss to
mention that two cases were filed in the Supreme Court by
the claimants, namely—G.R. No. 72132 on September 26,
1985 and Administrative Case No. 2858 on March 18, 1986.
On May 13, 1987, the Supreme Court issued a resolution in
Administrative Case No. 2858 directing the POEA
Administrator to resolve the issues raised in the motions
and oppositions filed in POEA Cases Nos. L-84-06-555 and
L-86-05-460 and to decide the labor cases with deliberate
dispatch.
AIBC also filed a petition in the Supreme Court (G.R.
No. 78489), questioning the Order dated September 4, 1985
of the POEA Administrator. Said order required BRII and
AIBC to answer the amended complaint in POEA Case No.
L-84-06-555. In a resolution dated November 9, 1987, we
dismissed the petition by informing AIBC that all its
technical objections may properly be resolved in the
hearings before the POEA.
Complaints were also filed before the Ombudsman. The
first was filed on September 22, 1988 by claimant Hermie
Arguellas
743
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 743

and 18 co-claimants against the POEA Administrator and

several NLRC Commissioners. The Ombudsman merely
referred the complaint to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment with a request for the early disposition of
POEA Case No. L-84-06-555. The second was filed on April
28, 1989 by claimants Emigdio P. Bautista and Rolando R.
Lobeta charging AIBC and BRII for violation of labor and
social legislations. The third was filed by Jose R. Santos,
Maximino N. Talibsao and Amado B. Bruce denouncing
AIBC and BRII of violations of labor laws.
On January 13, 1987, AIBC filed a motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated December
12, 1986.
On January 14, 1987, AIBC reiterated before the POEA
Administrator its motion for suspension of the period for
filing an answer or motion for extension of time to file the
same until the resolution of its motion for reconsideration
of the order of the NLRC dismissing the two appeals. On
April 28, 1987, NLRC en banc denied the motion for
reconsideration.
At the hearing on June 19, 1987, AIBC submitted its
answer to the complaint. At the same hearing, the parties
were given a period of 15 days from said date within which
to submit their respective position papers. On June 24,
1987, claimants filed their “Urgent Motion to Strike Out
Answer,” alleging that the answer was filed out of time. On
June 29, 1987, claimants filed their “Supplement to Urgent
Manifestational Motion” to comply with the POEA Order of
June 19, 1987. On February 24, 1988, AIBC and BRII
submitted their position paper. On March 4, 1988,
claimants filed their “Ex-Parte Motion to Expunge from the
Records” the position paper of AIBC and BRII, claiming
that it was filed out of time.
On September 1, 1988, the claimants represented by
Atty. De Castro filed their memorandum in POEA Case No.
L-86-05-460. On September 6, 1988, AIBC and BRII
submitted their Supplemental Memorandum. On
September 12, 1988, BRII filed its “Reply to Complainant’s
Memorandum.” On October 26, 1988, claimants submitted
their “Ex-Parte Manifestational Motion and Counter-
Supplemental Motion,” together with 446 individual
contracts of employments and service records. On October
27, 1988, AIBC and BRII filed a “Consolidated Reply.”
On January 30, 1989, the POEA Administrator rendered
his decision in POEA Case No. L-84-06-555 and the other
consolidated
744

cases, which awarded the amount of $824,652.44 in favor of

only 324 complainants.
On February 10, 1989, claimants submitted their
“Appeal Memorandum For Partial Appeal” from the
decision of the POEA. On the same day, AIBC also filed its
motion for reconsideration and/or appeal in addition to the
“Notice of Appeal” filed earlier on February 6, 1989 by
another counsel for AIBC.
On February 17, 1989, claimants filed their “Answer to
Appeal,” praying for the dismissal of the appeal of AIBC
and BRII.
On March 15, 1989, claimants filed their “Supplement to
Complainants’ Appeal Memorandum,” together with their
“newly discovered evidence” consisting of payroll records.
On April 5, 1989, AIBC and BRII submitted to NLRC
their “Manifestation,” stating among other matters that
there were only 728 named claimants. On April 20, 1989,
the claimants filed their “Counter-Manifestation,” alleging
that there were 1,767 of them.
On July 27, 1989, claimants filed their “Urgent Motion
For Execution” of the Decision dated January 30, 1989 on
the grounds that BRII had failed to appeal on time and
AIBC had not posted the supersedeas bond in the amount
of $824,652.44.
On December 23, 1989, claimants filed another motion
to resolve the labor cases.
On August 21, 1990, claimants filed their
“Manifestational Motion,” praying that all the 1,767
claimants be awarded their monetary claims for failure of
private respondents to file their answers within the
reglementary period required by law.
On September 2, 1991, NLRC promulgated its
Resolution, disposing as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the POEA in

these consolidated cases is modified to the extent and in
accordance with the following dispositions:
1. The claims of the 94 complainants identified and listed in
Annex “A” hereof are dismissed for having prescribed;
2. Respondents AIBC and Brown & Root are hereby ordered,
jointly and severally, to pay the 149 complainants,
identified and listed in Annex “B” hereof, the peso
equivalent, at the time of payment, of the total amount in
US dollars indicated opposite their respective names;
745
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 745

3. The awards given by the POEA to the 19 complainants

classified and listed in Annex “C” hereof, who appear to
have worked elsewhere than in Bahrain are hereby set
aside.
4. All claims other than those indicated in Annex “B”,
including those for overtime work and favorably granted
by the POEA, are hereby dismissed for lack of substantial
evidence in support thereof or are beyond the competence
of this Commission to pass upon.
In addition, this Commission, in the exercise of its powers and

authority under Article 218 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended by
R.A. 6715, hereby directs Labor Arbiter Fatima J. Franco of this
Commission to summon parties, conduct hearings and receive
evidence, as expeditiously as possible, and thereafter submit a
written report to this Commission (First Division) of the
proceedings taken, regarding the claims of the following:
(a) complainants identified and listed in Annex “D” attached

and made an integral part of this Resolution, whose
claims were dismissed by the POEA for lack of proof of
employment in Bahrain (these complainants numbering
683, are listed in pages 13 to 23 of the decision of POEA,
subject of the appeals) and,
(b) complainants identified and listed in Annex “E” attached
and made an integral part of this Resolution, whose
awards decreed by the POEA, to Our mind, are not
supported by substantial evidence” (G.R. No. 104776;
Rollo, pp. 113-115; G.R. Nos. 104911-14, pp. 85-87; G.R.
Nos. 105029-32, pp. 120-122).
On November 27, 1991, claimant Amado S. Tolentino and

12-co-claimants, who were former clients of Atty. Del
Mundo, filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court (G.R. Nos. 120741-44). The petition was dismissed in
a resolution dated January 27, 1992.
Three motions for reconsideration of the September 2,
1991 Resolution of the NLRC were filed. The first, by the
claimants represented by Atty. Del Mundo; the second, by
the claimants represented by Atty. De Castro; and the
third, by AIBC and BRII.
In its Resolution dated March 24, 1992, NLRC denied all
the motions for reconsideration.
Hence, these petitions filed by the claimants represented
by Atty. Del Mundo (G.R. No. 104776), the claimants
represented by Atty. De Castro (G.R. Nos. 104911-14) and
by AIBC and BRII
746

(G.R. Nos. 105029-32).
II
Compromise Agreements
Before this Court, the claimants represented by Atty. De
Castro and AIBC and BRII have submitted, from time to
time, compromise agreements for our approval and jointly
moved for the dismissal of their respective petitions insofar
as the claimants-parties to the compromise agreements
were concerned (See Annex A for list of claimants who
signed quitclaims).
Thus the following manifestations that the parties had
arrived at a compromise agreement and the corresponding
motions for the approval of the agreements were filed by
the parties and approved by the Court:
1) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant

Emigdio Abarquez and 47 co-claimants dated
September 2, 1992 (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp.
263-406; G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 470-615);
2) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving petitioner
Bienvenido Cadalin and 82 co-petitioners dated
September 3, 1992 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 364-
507);
Jose M. Aban and 36 co-claimants dated September
17, 1992 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 613-722;
G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 518-626; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 407-516);
Antonio T. Anglo and 17 co-claimants dated October
14, 1992 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 778-843;
G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 650-713; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 530-590);
Dionisio Bobongo and 6 co-claimants dated January
15, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 813-836; G.R.
Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 629-652);
Valerio A. Evangelista and 4 co-claimants dated
March 10, 1993 (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp.
731-746; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1815-1829);
7) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimants
Palconeri Banaag and 5 co-claimants dated March
17, 1993 (G.R.
747
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 747

No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1657-1703; G.R. Nos. 104911-

14, Rollo, pp. 655-675);
Benjamin Ambrosio and 15 other co-claimants
dated May 4, 1993 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp.
906-956; G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 679-729;
G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1773-1814);
9) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving Valerio
Evangelista and 3 co-claimants dated May 10, 1993
(G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1815-1829);
10) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving petitioner
Quiterio R. Agudo and 36 co-claimants dated June
14, 1993 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 974-1190;
G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 748-864; G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp. 1066-1183);
Arnaldo J. Alonzo and 19 co-claimants dated July
22, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1173-1235;
G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 1193-1256; G.R.
Nos. 104911-14, pp. 896-959);
Ricardo C. Dayrit and 2 co-claimants dated
September 7, 1993 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp.
1266-1278; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1243-1254;
G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 972-984);
Dante C. Aceres and 37 co-claimants dated
September 8, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp.
1257-1375; G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 987-
1105; G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 1280-1397);
14) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving Vivencio
V. Abella and 27 co-claimants dated January 10,
1994 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, Vol. II);
15) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving Domingo
B. Solano and six co-claimants dated August 25,
1994 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32; G.R. No. 104776; G.R.
Nos. 104911-14).
III
The facts as found by the NLRC are as follows:
“We have taken painstaking efforts to sift over the more than fifty
volumes now comprising the records of these cases. From the
records, it appears that the complainants-appellants allege that
they were recruited by respondent-appellant AIBC for its
accredited foreign principal, Brown & Root, on various dates from
1975 to 1983. They were all
748

deployed at various projects undertaken by Brown & Root in

several countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Libya,
United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, as well as in Southeast Asia,
in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Having been officially processed as overseas contract workers
by the Philippine Government, all the individual complainants
signed standard overseas employment contracts (Records, Vols.
25-32. Hereafter, reference to the records would be sparingly
made, considering their chaotic arrangement) with AIBC before
their departure from the Philippines. These overseas employment
contracts invariably contained the following relevant terms and
conditions.
PART B—
(1) Employment Position Classification :___________________
(Code) :___________________
(2) Company Employment Status :___________________
(3) Date of Employment to Commence on :__________________
(4) Basic Working Hours Per Week :___________________
(5) Basic Working Hours Per Month :___________________
(6) Basic Hourly Rate :___________________
(7) Overtime Rate Per Hour :___________________
(8) Projected Period of Service
(Subject to C (1) of this [sic]) :___________________
Months and/or
Job Completion
xxx
3. HOURS OF WORK AND COMPENSATION
a) The Employee is employed at the hourly rate and overtime

rate as set out in Part B of this Document.
b) The hours of work shall be those set forth by the
Employer, and Employer may, at his sole option, change
or adjust such hours as maybe deemed necessary from
time to time.
4. TERMINATION
a) Notwithstanding any other terms and conditions of this

agreement, the Employer may, at his sole discretion,
terminate employee’s service with cause, under this
agreement at any time. If the Employer terminates the
services of the Employee under this Agreement because of
the completion or termination, or suspension of the work
on which the Employee’s services were being utilized, or
because of a reduction in force due to a decrease in scope
of such work, or by change
749
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 749

in the type of construction of such work. The Employer

will be responsible for his return transportation to his
country of origin. Normally on the most expeditious air
route, economy class accommodation.
xxx
10. VACATION/SICK LEAVE BENEFITS
a) After one (1) year of continuous service and/or satisfactory

completion of contract, employee shall be entitled to 12-
days vacation leave with pay. This shall be computed at
the basic wage rate. Fractions of a year’s service will be
computed on a pro-rata basis.
b) Sick leave of 15-days shall be granted to the employee for
every year of service for non-work connected injuries or
illness. If the employee failed to avail of such leave
benefits, the same shall be forfeited at the end of the year
in which said sick leave is granted.
11. BONUS
A bonus of 20% (for offshore work) of gross income will be

accrued and payable only upon satisfactory completion of this
contract.
12. OFFDAY PAY
The seventh day of the week shall be observed as a day of rest

with 8 hours regular pay. If work is performed on this day, all
hours work shall be paid at the premium rate. However, this
offday pay provision is applicable only when the laws of the Host
Country require payments for rest day.
In the State of Bahrain, where some of the individual
complainants were deployed, His Majesty Isa Bin Salman Al
Kaifa, Amir of Bahrain, issued his Amiri Decree No. 23 on June
16, 1976, otherwise known as the Labour Law for the Private
Sector (Records, Vol. 18). This decree took effect on August 16,
1976. Some of the provisions of Amiri Decree No. 23 that are
relevant to the claims of the complainants-appellants are as
follows (italics supplied only for emphasis):
Art. 79: x x x A worker shall receive payment for each extra hour
equivalent to his wage entitlement increased by a minimum of twenty-five
per centum thereof for hours worked during the day; and by a minimum
of fifty per centum thereof for hours worked during the night which shall
be deemed to being from seven o’clock in the evening until seven o’clock
in the morning x x x.”
Art. 80: Friday shall be deemed to be a weekly day of rest on full pay.
x x x an employer may require a worker, with his consent, to work on
his weekly day of rest if circumstances so require and in
750
respect of which an additional sum equivalent to 150% of his normal wage

shall be paid to him x x x.”
Art. 81: x x x When conditions of work require the worker to work on
any official holiday, he shall be paid an additional sum equivalent to
150% of his normal wage.”
Art. 84: Every worker who has completed one year’s continuous service
with his employer shall be entitled to leave on full pay for a period of not
less than 21 days for each year increased to a period not less than 28 days
after five continuous years of service.”
A worker shall be entitled to such leave upon a quantum meruit in
respect of the proportion of his service in that year.”
Art. 107: A contract of employment made for a period of indefinite
duration may be terminated by either party thereto after giving the other
party thirty days’ prior notice before such termination, in writing, in
respect of monthly paid workers and fifteen days’ notice in respect of
other workers. The party terminating a contract without giving the
required notice shall pay to the other party compensation equivalent to the
amount of wages payable to the worker for the period of such notice or the
unexpired portion thereof.”
Art. 111: x x x the employer concerned shall pay to such worker, upon
termination of employment, a leaving indemnity for the period of his
employment calculated on the basis of fifteen days’ wages for each year of
the first three years of service and of one month’s wages for each year of
service thereafter. Such worker shall be entitled to payment of leaving
indemnity upon a quantum meruit in proportion to the period of his
service completed within a year.”
All the individual complainants-appellants have already been
repatriated to the Philippines at the time of the filing of these cases (G.R.
No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 59-65).
IV
The issues raised before and resolved by the NLRC were:
First:—Whether or not complainants are entitled to the benefits

provided by Amiri Decree No. 23 of Bahrain;
(a) Whether or not the complainants who have worked in

Bahrain are entitled to the above-mentioned benefits.
(b) Whether or not Art. 44 of the same Decree (allegedly
prescribing a more favorable treatment of alien
employees) bars
751
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 751
complainants from enjoying its benefits.

Second:—Assuming that Amiri Decree No. 23 of Bahrain is
applicable in these cases, whether or not complainants’ claim for
the benefits provided therein have prescribed.
Third:—Whether or not the instant cases qualify as a class
suit.
Fourth:—Whether or not the proceedings conducted by the
POEA, as well as the decision that is the subject of these appeals,
conformed with the requirements of due process;
(a) Whether or not the respondent-appellant was denied its

right to due process;
(b) Whether or not the admission of evidence by the POEA
after these cases were submitted for decision was valid;
(c) Whether or not the POEA acquired jurisdiction over
Brown & Root International, Inc.;
(d) Whether or not the judgment awards are supported by
substantial evidence;
(e) Whether or not the awards based on the averages and
formula presented by the complainants-appellants are
supported by substantial evidence;
(f) Whether or not the POEA awarded sums beyond what the
complainants-appellants prayed for; and, if so, whether or
not these awards are valid.
Fifth:—Whether or not the POEA erred in holding respondents

AIBC and Brown & Root jointly and severally liable for the
judgment awards despite the alleged finding that the former was
the employer of the complainants;
(a) Whether or not the POEA has acquired jurisdiction over

Brown & Root;
(b) Whether or not the undisputed fact that AIBC was a
licensed construction contractor precludes a finding that
Brown & Root is liable for complainants claims.
Sixth:—Whether or not the POEA Administrator’s failure to

hold respondents in default constitutes a reversible error.
Seventh:—Whether or not the POEA Administrator erred in
dismissing the following claims:
a. Unexpired portion of contract;

b. Interest earnings of Travel and Reserve Fund;
c. Retirement and Savings Plan benefits;
d. War Zone bonus or premium pay of at least 100% of basic
pay;
e. Area Differential Pay;
752

f. Accrued interests on all the unpaid benefits;

g. Salary differential pay;
h. Wage differential pay;
i. Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to SSS;
j. Refund of withholding tax not remitted to BIR;
k. Fringe benefits under B & R’s “A Summary of Employee
Benefits” (Annex “Q” of Amended Complaint);
l. Moral and exemplary damages;
m. Attorney’s fees of at least ten percent of the judgment
award;
n. Other reliefs, like suspending and/or cancelling the license
to recruit of AIBC and the accreditation of B & R issued by
POEA;
o. Penalty for violations of Article 34 (prohibited practices),
not excluding reportorial requirements thereof.
Eighth:—Whether or not the POEA Administrator erred in not

dismissing POEA Case No. (L) 86-65-460 on the ground of
multiplicity of suits (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 25-29, 51-55).
Anent 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
(Labour Law for the Private Sector). 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.
NLRC, however, held that the Amiri Decree No. 23
applied only to the claimants, who worked in Bahrain, and
set aside awards of the POEA Administrator in favor of the
claimants, who worked elsewhere.
On the second issue, NLRC ruled that the prescriptive
period for the filing of the claims of the complainants was
three years, as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines, and not ten years as provided in Article
1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines nor one year as
provided in the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976.
753
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 753

On the third issue, NLRC agreed with the POEA

Administrator that the labor cases cannot be treated as a
class suit for the simple reason that not all the
complainants worked in Bahrain and therefore, the subject
matter of the action, the claims arising from the Bahrain
law, is not of common or general interest to all the
complainants.
On the fourth issue, NLRC found at least three
infractions of the cardinal rules of administrative due
process: namely, (1) the failure of the POEA Administrator
to consider the evidence presented by AIBC and BRII; (2)
some findings of fact were not supported by substantial
evidence; and (3) some of the evidence upon which the
decision was based were not disclosed to AIBC and BRII
during the hearing.
On the fifth issue, NLRC sustained the ruling of the
POEA Administrator that BRII and AIBC are solidarily
liable for the claims of the complainants and held that BRII
was the actual employer of the complainants, or at the very
least, the indirect employer, with AIBC as the labor
contractor.
NLRC also held that jurisdiction over BRII was acquired
by the POEA Administrator through the summons served
on AIBC, its local agent.
On the sixth issue, NLRC held that the POEA
Administrator was correct in denying the Motion to Declare
AIBC in default.
On the seventh issue, which involved other money
claims not based on the Amiri Decree No. 23, NLRC ruled:
(1) that the POEA Administrator has no jurisdiction

over the claims for refund of the SSS premiums and
refund of withholding taxes and the claimants
should file their claims for said refund with the
appropriate government agencies;
(2) that claimants failed to establish that they are
entitled to the claims which are not based on the
overseas employment contracts nor the Amiri
Decree No. 23 of 1976;
over claims for moral and exemplary damages and
nonetheless, the basis for granting said damages
was not established;
(4) that the claims for salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of their contract may be allowed
if filed within the three-year prescriptive period;
(5) that the allegation that complainants were
prematurely repatriated prior to the expiration of
their overseas contract was
754

not established; and

over the complaint for the suspension or
cancellation of the AIBC’s recruitment license and
the cancellation of the accreditation of BRII.
NLRC passed sub silencio the last issue, the claim that
POEA Case No. (L) 86-65-460 should have been dismissed
on the ground that the claimants in said case were also
claimants in POEA Case No. (L) 84-06-555. Instead of
dismissing POEA Case No. (L) 86-65-460, the POEA just
resolved the corresponding claims in POEA Case No. (L)
84-06-555. In other words, the POEA did not pass upon the
same claims twice.
G.R. No. 104776

Claimants in G.R. No. 104776 based their petition for
certiorari on the following grounds:
(1) that they were deprived by NLRC and the POEA of

their right to a speedy disposition of their cases as
guaranteed by Section 16, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The POEA Administrator allowed
private respondents to file their answers in two
years (on June 19, 1987) after the filing of the
original complaint (on April 2, 1985) and NLRC, in
total disregard of its own rules, affirmed the action
of the POEA Administrator;
(2) that NLRC and the POEA Administrator should
have declared AIBC and BRII in default and should
have rendered summary judgment on the basis of
the pleadings and evidence submitted by claimants;
(3) that NLRC and POEA Administrator erred in not
holding that the labor cases filed by AIBC and BRII
cannot be considered a class suit;
(4) that the prescriptive period for the filing of the
claims is ten years; and
(5) that NLRC and the POEA Administrator should
have dismissed POEA Case No. L-86-05-460, the
case filed by Atty. Florante de Castro (Rollo, pp. 31-
40).
755
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 755

AIBC and BRII, commenting on the petition in G.R. No.

104776, argued:
(1) that they were not responsible for the delay in the
disposition of the labor cases, considering the great
difficulty of getting all the records of the more than
1,500 claimants, the piece-meal filing of the
complaints and the addition of hundreds of new
claimants by petitioners;
(2) that considering the number of complaints and
claimants, it was impossible to prepare the answers
within the ten-day period provided in the NLRC
Rules, that when the motion to declare AIBC in
default was filed on July 19, 1987, said party had
already filed its answer, and that considering the
staggering amount of the claims (more than
US$50,000,000.00) and the complicated issues
raised by the parties, the ten-day rule to answer
was not fair and reasonable;
(3) that the claimants failed to refute NLRC’s finding
that there was no common or general interest in the
subject matter of the controversy—which was the
applicability of the Amiri Decree No. 23. Likewise,
the nature of the claims varied, some being based
on salaries pertaining to the unexpired portion of
the contracts while others being for pure money
claims. Each claimant demanded separate claims
peculiar only to himself and depending upon the
particular circumstances obtaining in his case;
(4) that the prescriptive period for filing the claims is
that prescribed by Article 291 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines (three years) and not the one
prescribed by Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines (ten years); and
(5) that they are not concerned with the issue of
whether POEA Case No. L-86-05-460 should be
dismissed, this being a private quarrel between the
two labor lawyers (Rollo, pp. 292-305).
Attorney’s Lien
On November 12, 1992, Atty. Gerardo A. del Mundo moved
to strike out the joint manifestations and motions of AIBC
and BRII dated September 2 and 11, 1992, claiming that
all the claimants who entered into the compromise
agreements subject of said manifestations and motions
were his clients and that Atty. Florante M. de Castro had
no right to represent them in said
756

agreements. He also claimed that the claimants were paid

less than the award given them by NLRC; that Atty. De
Castro collected additional attorney’s fees on top of the 25%
which he was entitled to receive; and that the consent of
the claimants to the compromise agreements and
quitclaims were procured by fraud (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo,
pp. 838-810). In the Resolution dated November 23, 1992,
the Court denied the motion to strike out the Joint
Manifestations and Motions dated September 2 and 11,
1992 (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 608-609).
On December 14, 1992, Atty. Del Mundo filed a “Notice
and Claim to Enforce Attorney’s Lien,” alleging that the
claimants who entered into compromise agreements with
AIBC and BRII with the assistance of Atty. De Castro, had
all signed a retainer agreement with his law firm (G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp. 623-624; 838-1535).
Contempt of Court
On February 18, 1993, an omnibus motion was filed by
Atty. Del Mundo to cite Atty. De Castro and Atty. Katz
Tierra for contempt of court and for violation of Canons 1,
15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
said lawyers allegedly misled this Court, by making it
appear that the claimants who entered into the
compromise agreements were represented by Atty. De
Castro, when in fact they were represented by Atty. Del
Mundo (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1560-1614).
On September 23, 1994, Atty. Del Mundo reiterated his
charges against Atty. De Castro for unethical practices and
moved for the voiding of the quitclaims submitted by some
of the claimants.
G.R. Nos. 104911-14

The claimants in G.R. Nos. 104911-14 based their petition
for certiorari on the grounds that NLRC gravely abused its
discretion when it: (1) applied the three-year prescriptive
period under the Labor Code of the Philippines; and (2) it
denied the claimant’s formula based on an average
overtime pay of three hours a day (Rollo, pp. 18-22).
The claimants argue that said method was proposed by
BRII itself during the negotiation for an amicable
settlement of their money claims in Bahrain as shown in
the Memorandum dated
757
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 757

April 16, 1983 of the Ministry of Labor of Bahrain (Rollo,

pp. 21-22).
BRII and AIBC, in their Comment, reiterated their
contention in G.R. No. 104776 that the prescriptive period
in the Labor Code of the Philippines, a special law, prevails
over that provided in the Civil Code of the Philippines, a
general law.
As to the memorandum of the Ministry of Labor of
Bahrain on the method of computing the overtime pay,
BRII and AIBC claimed that they were not bound by what
appeared therein, because such memorandum was
proposed by a subordinate Bahrain official and there was
no showing that it was approved by the Bahrain Minister
of Labor. Likewise, they claimed that the averaging method
was discussed in the course of the negotiation for the
amicable settlement of the dispute and any offer made by a
party therein could not be used as an admission by him
(Rollo, pp. 228-236).
G.R. Nos. 105029-32

In G.R. Nos. 105029-32, BRII and AIBC claim that NLRC
gravely abused its discretion when it: (1) enforced the
provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 and not the
terms of the employment contracts; (2) granted claims for
holiday, overtime and leave indemnity pay and other
benefits, on evidence admitted in contravention of
petitioners’ constitutional right to due process; and (3)
ordered the POEA Administrator to hold new hearings for
the 683 claimants whose claims had been dismissed for
lack of proof by the POEA Administrator or NLRC itself.
Lastly, they allege that assuming that the Amiri Decree
No. 23 of 1976 was applicable, NLRC erred when it did not
apply the one-year prescription provided in said law (Rollo,
pp. 29-30).
VI
G.R. No. 104776; G.R. Nos. 104911-14; G.R. Nos. 105029-32

All the petitions raise the common issue of prescription
although they disagreed as to the time that should be
embraced within the prescriptive period.
To the POEA Administrator, the prescriptive period was
ten years, applying Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. NLRC believed otherwise, fixing the
prescriptive period at three
758

years as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the

Philippines.
The claimants in G.R. No. 104776 and G.R. Nos. 104911-
14, invoking different grounds, insisted that NLRC erred in
ruling that the prescriptive period applicable to the claims
was three years, instead of ten years, as found by the
POEA Administrator.
The Solicitor General expressed his personal view that
the prescriptive period was one year as prescribed by the
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 but he deferred to the ruling of
NLRC that Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
was the operative law.
The POEA Administrator held the view that:
“These money claims (under Article 291 of the Labor Code) refer
to those arising from the employer’s violation of the employee’s
right as provided by the Labor Code.
In the instant case, what the respondents violated are not the
rights of the workers as provided by the Labor Code, but the
provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 issued in Bahrain, which
ipso facto amended the workers’ contracts of employment.
Respondents consciously failed to conform to these provisions
which specifically provide for the increase of the workers’ rate. It
was only after June 30, 1983, four months after the brown
builders brought a suit against B & R in Bahrain for this same
claim, when respondent AIBC’s contracts have undergone amend-
ments in Bahrain for the new hires/renewals (Respondent’s
Exhibit 7).
Hence, premises considered, the applicable law of prescription
to this instant case is Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which provides:
‘Article 1144. The following actions may be brought within ten years from
the time the cause of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;

(2) Upon an obligation created by law;’
Thus, herein money claims of the complainants against the

respondents shall prescribe in ten years from August 16, 1976.
Inasmuch as all claims were filed within the ten-year prescriptive
period, no claim suffered the infirmity of being prescribed” (G.R.
No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 89-90).
In overruling the POEA Administrator, and holding that

the prescriptive period is three years as provided in Article
291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the NLRC argued
as follows:
759
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 759

“The Labor Code provides that ‘all money claims arising from
employer-employee relations x x x shall be filed within three
years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they
shall be forever barred’ (Art. 291, Labor Code, as amended). This
three-year prescriptive period shall be the one applied here and
which should be reckoned from the date of repatriation of each
individual complainant, considering the fact that the case is
having (sic) filed in this country. We do not agree with the POEA
Administrator that this three-year prescriptive period applies
only to money claims specifically recoverable under the Philippine
Labor Code. Article 291 gives no such indication. Likewise, We
can not consider complainants’ cause/s of action to have accrued
from a violation of their employment contracts. There was no
violation; the claims arise from the benefits of the law of the
country where they worked” (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 90-91).
Anent the applicability of the one-year prescriptive period

as provided by the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976, NLRC
opined that the applicability of said law was one of
characterization, i.e., whether to characterize the foreign
law on prescription or statute of limitation as “substantive”
or “procedural.” NLRC cited the decision in Bournias v.
Atlantic Maritime Company (220 F. 2d. 152, 2d Cir. [1955]),
where the issue was the applicability of the Panama Labor
Code in a case filed in the State of New York for claims
arising from said Code. In said case, the claims would have
prescribed under the Panamanian Law but not under the
Statute of Limitations of New York. The U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals held that the Panamanian Law was procedural
as it was not “specifically intended to be substantive,”
hence, the prescriptive period provided in the law of the
forum should apply. The Court observed:
“. . . And where, as here, we are dealing with a statute of

limitations of a foreign country, and it is not clear on the face of
the statute that its purpose was to limit the enforceability,
outside as well as within the foreign country concerned, of the
substantive rights to which the statute pertains, we think that as
a yardstick for determining whether that was the purpose this
test is the most satisfactory one. It does not lead American courts
into the necessity of examining into the unfamiliar peculiarities
and refinements of different foreign legal systems . . .”
The Court further noted:

760

xxx xxx xxx

“Applying that test here it appears to us that the libelant is
entitled to succeed, for the respondents have failed to satisfy us
that the Panamanian period of limitation in question was
specifically aimed against the particular rights which the libelant
seeks to enforce. The Panama Labor Code is a statute having
broad objectives, viz: ‘The present Code regulates the relations
between capital and labor, placing them on a basis of social
justice, so that, without injuring any of the parties, there may be
guaranteed for labor the necessary conditions for a normal life
and to capital an equitable return to its investment.’ In pursuance
of these objectives the Code gives laborers various rights against
their employers. Article 623 establishes the period of limitation
for all such rights, except certain ones which are enumerated in
Article 621. And there is nothing in the record to indicate that the
Panamanian legislature gave special consideration to the impact
of Article 623 upon the particular rights sought to be enforced
here, as distinguished from the other rights to which that Article
is also applicable. Were we confronted with the question of
whether the limitation period of Article 621 (which carves out
particular rights to be governed by a shorter limitation period) is
to be regarded as ‘substantive’ or ‘procedural’ under the rule of
‘specifity’ we might have a different case; but here on the surface
of things we appear to be dealing with a ‘broad,’ and not a
‘specific,’ statute of limitations” (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 92-
94).
Claimants in G.R. Nos. 104911-14 are of the view that

Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which was
applied by NLRC, refers only to claims “arising from the
employer’s violation of the employee’s right as provided by
the Labor Code.” They assert that their claims are based on
the violation of their employment contracts, as amended by
the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 and therefore the claims
may be brought within ten years as provided by Article
1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rollo, G.R. Nos.
104911-14, pp. 18-21). To bolster their contention, they cite
PALEA v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 70 SCRA 244 (1976).
AIBC and BRII, insisting that the actions on the claims
have prescribed under the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976,
argue that there is in force in the Philippines a “borrowing
law,” which is Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
that where such kind of law exists, it takes precedence over
the common-law conflicts rule (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp.
45-46).
First to be determined is whether it is the Bahrain law
on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23
of 1976 or
761
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 761
a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing

law. Article 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976
provides:
“A claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be

actionable after the lapse of one year from the date of the expiry
of the contract” (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, p. 226).
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be

applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of
process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal,
and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is
true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive
law (Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, Sec. 685;
Salonga, Private International Law, 1 31 [1979]).
A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict
of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as
procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization given such a law.
Thus in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company, supra,
the American court applied the statute of limitations of
New York, instead of the Panamanian law, after finding
that there was no showing that the Panamanian law on
prescription was intended to be substantive. Being
considered merely a procedural law even in Panama, it has
to give way to the law of the forum on prescription of
actions.
However, the characterization of a statute into a
procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the
country of the forum has a “borrowing statute.” Said
statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign
statute of limitation as one of substance (Goodrich, Conflict
of Laws, 152-153 [1938]). A “borrowing statute” directs the
state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations
to the pending claims based on a foreign law (Siegel,
Conflicts, 183 [1975]). While there are several kinds of
“borrowing statutes,” one form provides that an action
barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be
enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not
run against it (Goodrich and Scoles, Conflict of Laws, 152-
153 [1938]). Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of
this kind. Said Section provides:
“If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action
arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine
Islands.”
762

Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil

Code of the Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed
only those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to
which were inconsistent with it. There is no provision in
the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is inconsistent with
or contradictory to Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Paras, Philippine Conflict of Laws, 104 [7th ed.]).
In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section
48 cannot be enforced ex proprio vigore insofar as it ordains
the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976.
The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign
claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy (Canadian
Northern Railway Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 40 S. Ct. 402,
64 L. ed. 713 [1920]). To enforce the one-year prescriptive
period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the
claims in question would contravene the public policy on
the protection to labor.
In the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the
1987 Constitution emphasized that:
“The state shall promote social justice in all phases of national

development” (Sec. 10).
“The state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It
shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare”
(Sec. 18).
In Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, the

1987 Constitution provides:
“Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.”
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.
The claimants are of the view that the applicable
provision is Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which provides:
763
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 763
“The following actions must be brought within ten years from the
time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;

(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.”
NLRC, on the other hand, believes that the applicable

provision is Article 291 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, which in pertinent part provides:
“Money claims-all money claims arising from employer-employee

relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed
within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued,
otherwise they shall be forever barred.
x x x.”
The case of Philippine Air Lines Employees Association v.

Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 70 SCRA 244 (1976) invoked by
the claimants in G.R. Nos. 104911-14 is inapplicable to the
cases at bench (Rollo, p. 21). The said case involved the
correct computation of overtime pay as provided in the
collective bargaining agreements and not the Eight-Hour
Labor Law.
As noted by the Court: “That is precisely why petitioners
did not make any reference as to the computation for
overtime work under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Secs. 3
and 4, CA No. 494) and instead insisted that work
computation provided in the collective bargaining
agreements between the parties be observed. 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(1) of the New
Civil Code should govern.”
Section 7-a of the Eight-Hour Labor Law (CA No. 444 as
amended by R.A. No. 19933) provides:
“Any action to enforce any cause of action under this Act shall be
commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued
otherwise such action shall be forever barred, x x x.”
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
764

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 a 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.
VII
G.R. No. 104776

A. As to the first two grounds for the petition in G.R. No.
104776, claimants aver: (1) that while their complaints
were filed on June 6, 1984 with POEA, the case was
decided only on January 30, 1989, a clear denial of their
right to a speedy disposition of the case; and (2) that NLRC
and the POEA Administrator should have declared AIBC
and BRII in default (Rollo, pp. 31-35).
Claimants invoke a new provision incorporated in the
1987 Constitution, which provides:
“Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies.”
765
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 765

It is true that the constitutional right to “a speedy

disposition of cases” is not limited to the accused in
criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases,
including civil and administrative cases, and in all
proceedings, including judicial and quasijudicial hearings.
Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a case may
demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked
with the administration of justice.
However, as held in Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr., 153 SCRA
153 (1987), “speedy disposition of cases” is a relative term.
Just like the constitutional guarantee of “speedy trial”
accorded to the accused in all criminal proceedings, “speedy
disposition of cases” is a flexible concept. It is consistent
with delays and depends upon the circumstances of each
case. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable,
arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights
nugatory.
Caballero laid down the factors that may be taken into
consideration in determining whether or not the right to a
“speedy disposition of cases” has been violated, thus:
“In the determination of whether or not the right to a ‘speedy

trial’ has been violated, certain factors may be considered and
balanced against each other. These are length of delay, reason for
the delay, assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and
prejudice caused by the delay. The same factors may also be
considered in answering judicial inquiry whether or not a person
officially charged with the administration of justice has violated
the speedy disposition of cases.”
Likewise, in Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan, 199 SCRA 298,

(1991), we held:
“It must be here emphasized that the right to a speedy disposition

of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only
when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial
are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justified
motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried.”
Since July 25, 1984 or a month after AIBC and BRII were
served with a copy of the amended complaint, claimants
had been asking that AIBC and BRII be declared in default
for failure to file their answers within the ten-day period
provided in
766

Section 1, Rule III of Book VI of the Rules and Regulations

of the POEA. At that time, there was a pending motion of
AIBC and BRII to strike out of the records the amended
complaint and the “Compliance” of claimants to the order of
the POEA, requiring them to submit a bill of particulars.
The cases at bench are not of the run-of-the-mill variety,
such that their final disposition in the administrative level
after seven years from their inception, cannot be said to be
attended by unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays
as to violate the constitutional rights to a speedy
disposition of the cases of complainants.
The amended complaint filed on June 6, 1984 involved a
total of 1,767 claimants. Said complaint had undergone
several amendments, the first being on April 3, 1985.
The claimants were hired on various dates from 1975 to
1983. They were deployed in different areas, one group in
and the other groups outside of, Bahrain. The monetary
claims totalling more than US$65 million according to
Atty. Del Mundo, included:
“1. Unexpired portion of contract;

2. Interest earnings of Travel and Fund;
3. Retirement and Savings Plan benefit;
4. War Zone bonus or premium pay of at least 100% of
basic pay;
5. Area Differential pay;
6. Accrued Interest of all the unpaid benefits;
7. Salary differential pay;
8. Wage Differential pay;
9. Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to Social
Security System;
10. Refund of Withholding Tax not remitted to Bureau
of Internal Revenue (B.I.R.);
11. Fringe Benefits under Brown & Root’s “A Summary
of Employees Benefits consisting of 43 pages
(Annex “Q” of Amended Complaint);
12. Moral and Exemplary Damages;
13. Attorney’s fees of at least ten percent of amounts;
14. Other reliefs, like suspending and/or cancelling the
license to recruit of AIBC and issued by the POEA;
and
15. Penalty for violation of Article 34 (Prohibited
practices) not excluding reportorial requirements
thereof” (NLRC Resolution, September 2, 1991, pp.
18-19; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 73-74).
767
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 767

Inasmuch as the complaint did not allege with sufficient

definiteness and clarity of some facts, the claimants were
ordered to comply with the motion of AIBC for a bill of
particulars. When claimants filed their “Compliance and
Manifestation,” AIBC moved to strike out the complaint
from the records for failure of claimants to submit a proper
bill of particulars. While the POEA Administrator denied
the motion to strike out the complaint, he ordered the
claimants “to correct the deficiencies” pointed out by AIBC.
Before an intelligent answer could be filed in response to
the complaint, the records of employment of the more than
1,700 claimants had to be retrieved from various countries
in the Middle East. Some of the records dated as far back
as 1975.
The hearings on the merits of the claims before the
POEA Administrator were interrupted several times by the
various appeals, first to NLRC and then to the Supreme
Court.
Aside from the inclusion of additional claimants, two
new cases were filed against AIBC and BRII on October 10,
1985 (POEA Cases Nos. L-85-10-777 and L-85-10-779).
Another complaint was filed on May 29, 1986 (POEA Case
No. L-86-05-460). NLRC, in exasperation, noted that the
exact number of claimants had never been completely
established (Resolution, Sept. 2, 1991, G.R. No. 104776,
Rollo, p. 57). All the three new cases were consolidated
with POEA Case No. L-84-06-555.
NLRC blamed the parties and their lawyers for the
delay in terminating the proceedings, thus:
“These cases could have been spared the long and arduous route
towards resolution had the parties and their counsel been more
interested in pursuing the truth and the merits of the claims
rather than exhibiting a fanatical reliance on technicalities.
Parties and counsel have made these cases a litigation of emotion.
The intransigence of parties and counsel is remarkable. As late as
last month, this Commission made a last and final attempt to
bring the counsel of all the parties (this Commission issued a
special order directing respondent Brown & Root’s resident
agent/s to appear) to come to a more conciliatory stance. Even this
failed” (Rollo, p. 58).
The squabble between the lawyers of claimants added to

the delay in the disposition of the cases, to the lament of
NLRC, which complained:
768

“It is very evident from the records that the protagonists in these
consolidated cases appear to be not only the individual
complainants, on the one hand, and AIBC and Brown & Root, on
the other hand. The two lawyers for the complainants, Atty.
Gerardo Del Mundo and Atty. Florante De Castro, have yet to
settle the right of representation, each one persistently claiming
to appear in behalf of most of the complainants. As a result, there
are two appeals by the complainants. Attempts by this
Commission to resolve counsels’ conflicting claims of their
respective authority to represent the complainants prove futile.
The bickerings by these two counsels are reflected in their
pleadings. In the charges and countercharges of falsification of
documents and signatures, and in the disbarment proceedings by
one against the other. All these have, to a large extent, abetted in
confounding the issues raised in these cases, jumble the
presentation of evidence, and even derailed the prospects of an
amicable settlement. It would not be far-fetched to imagine that
both counsel, unwittingly, perhaps, painted a rainbow for the
com-plainants, with the proverbial pot of gold at its end
containing more than US$100 million, the aggregate of the claims
in these cases. It is, likewise, not improbable that their misplaced
zeal and exuberance caused them to throw all caution to the wind
in the matter of elementary rules of procedure and evidence”
(Rollo, pp. 58-59).
Adding to the confusion in the proceedings before NLRC, is

the listing of some of the complainants in both petitions
filed by the two lawyers. As noted by NLRC, “the problem
created by this situation is that if one of the two petitions is
dismissed, then the parties and the public respondents
would not know which claim of which petitioner was
dismissed and which was not.”
B. Claimants insist that all their claims could properly
be consolidated in a “class suit” because “all the named
complainants have similar money claims and similar rights
sought irrespective of whether they worked in Bahrain,
United Arab Emirates or in Abu Dhabi, Libya or in any
part of the Middle East” (Rollo, pp. 35-38).
A class suit is proper where the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
and the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to
bring them all before the court (Revised Rules of Court,
Rule 3, Sec. 12).
While all the claims are for benefits granted under the
Bahrain law, many of the claimants worked outside
Bahrain. Some of the claimants were deployed in Indonesia
and Malaysia under
769
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 769

different terms and conditions of employment.

NLRC and the POEA Administrator are correct in their
stance that inasmuch as the first requirement of a class
suit is not present (common or general interest based on
the Amiri Decree of the State of Bahrain), it is only logical
that only those who worked in Bahrain shall be entitled to
file their claims in a class suit.
While there are common defendants (AIBC and BRII)
and the nature of the claims is the same (for employee’s
benefits), there is no common question of law or fact. While
some claims are based on the Amiri Law of Bahrain, many
of the claimants never worked in that country, but were
deployed elsewhere. Thus, each claimant is interested only
in his own demand and not in the claims of the other
employees of defendants. The named claimants have a
special or particular interest in specific benefits completely
different from the benefits in which the other named
claimants and those included as members of a “class” are
claiming (Berses v. Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473 [1913]). It
appears that each claimant is only interested in collecting
his own claims. A claimant has no concern in protecting the
interests of the other claimants as shown by the fact, that
hundreds of them have abandoned their co-claimants and
have entered into separate compromise settlements of their
respective claims. A principle basic to the concept of “class
suit” is that plaintiffs brought on the record must fairly
represent and protect the interests of the others (Dimayuga
v. Court of Industrial Relations, 101 Phil. 590 [1957]). For
this matter, the claimants who worked in Bahrain can not
be allowed to sue in a class suit in a judicial proceeding.
The most that can be accorded to them under the Rules of
Court is to be allowed to join as plaintiffs in one complaint
(Revised Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 6).
The Court is extra-cautious in allowing class suits
because they are the exceptions to the condition sine qua
non, requiring the joinder of all indispensable parties.
In an improperly instituted class suit, there would be no
problem if the decision secured is favorable to the
plaintiffs. The problem arises when the decision is adverse
to them, in which case the others who were impleaded by
their self-appointed representatives, would surely claim
denial of due process.
770

C. The claimants in G.R. No. 104776 also urged that the

POEA Administrator and NLRC should have declared Atty.
Florante De Castro guilty of “forum shopping, ambulance
chasing activities, falsification, duplicity and other
unprofessional activities” and his appearances as counsel
for some of the claimants as illegal (Rollo, pp. 38-40).
The Anti-Forum Shopping Rule (Revised Circular No.
28-91) is intended to put a stop to the practice of some
parties of filing multiple petitions and complaints involving
the same issues, with the result that the courts or agencies
have to resolve the same issues. Said Rule, however,
applies only to petitions filed with the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeals. It is entitled “Additional
Requirements For Petitions Filed with the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals To Prevent Forum Shopping or
Multiple Filing of Petitioners and Complainants.” The first
sentence of the circular expressly states that said circular
applies to and governs the filing of petitions in the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
While Administrative Circular No. 04-94 extended the
application of the anti-forum shopping rule to the lower
courts and administrative agencies, said circular took effect
only on April 1, 1994.
POEA and NLRC could not have entertained the
complaint for unethical conduct against Atty. De Castro
because NLRC and POEA have no jurisdiction to
investigate charges of unethical conduct of lawyers.
Attorney’s Lien
The “Notice and Claim to Enforce Attorney’s Lien” dated
December 14, 1992 was filed by Atty. Gerardo A. Del
Mundo to protect his claim for attorney’s fees for legal
services rendered in favor of the claimants (G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp. 838-810; 1525).
A statement of a claim for a charging lien shall be filed
with the court or administrative agency which renders and
executes the money judgment secured by the lawyer for his
clients. The lawyer shall cause written notice thereof to be
delivered to his clients and to the adverse party (Revised
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 37). The statement of the
claim for the charging lien of Atty. Del Mundo should have
been filed with the administrative
771
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 771

agency that rendered and executed the judgment.
Contempt of Court
The complaint of Atty. Gerardo A. Del Mundo to cite Atty.
Florante De Castro and Atty. Katz Tierra for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility should be filed in a
separate and appropriate proceeding.
G.R. No. 104911-14

Claimants charge NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in
not accepting their formula of “Three Hours Average Daily
Overtime” in computing the overtime payments. They
claim that it was BRII itself which proposed the formula
during the negotiations for the settlement of their claims in
Bahrain and therefore it is in estoppel to disclaim said offer
(Rollo, pp. 21-22).
Claimants presented a Memorandum of the Ministry of
Labor of Bahrain dated April 16, 1983, which in pertinent
part states:
“After the perusal of the memorandum of the Vice President and
the Area Manager, Middle East, of Brown & Root Co. and the
Summary of the compensation offered by the Company to the
employees in respect of the difference of pay of the wages of the
overtime and the difference of vacation leave and the perusal of
the documents attached thereto i.e., minutes of the meetings
between the Representative of the employees and the
management of the Company, the complaint filed by the
employees on 14/2/83 where they have claimed as hereinabove
stated, sample of the Service Contract executed between one of
the employees and the company through its agent in (sic)
Philippines, Asia International Builders Corporation where it has
been provided for 48 hours of work per week and an annual leave
of 12 days and an overtime wage of 1 & 1/4 of the normal hourly
wage.
xxx
The Company in its computation reached the following
averages:
A. 1. The average duration of the actual service of the employee

is 35 months for the Philippino (sic) employees x x x.
2. The average wage per hour for the Philippino (sic)

employee is US$2.69 x x x.
3. The average hours for the overtime is 3 hours plus in all
public holidays and weekends.
4. Payment of US$8.72 per months (sic) of service as
compensation forthe difference of the wages of the overtime
done for each Philipino
772

(sic) employee x x x” (Rollo, p. 22).
BRII and AIBC countered: (1) that the Memorandum was

not prepared by them but by a subordinate official in the
Bahrain Department of Labor; (2) that there was no
showing that the Bahrain Minister of Labor had approved
said memorandum; and (3) that the offer was made in the
course of the negotiation for an amicable settlement of the
claims and therefore it was not admissible in evidence to
prove that anything is due to the claimants.
While said document was presented to the POEA
without observing the rule on presenting official documents
of a foreign government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132
of the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, it can be admitted
in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body.
The opposing parties have a copy of the said memorandum,
and they could easily verify its authenticity and accuracy.
The admissibility of the offer of compromise made by
BRII as contained in the memorandum is another matter.
Under Section 27, Rule 130 of the 1989 Revised Rules on
Evidence, an offer to settle a claim is not an admission that
anything is due.
Said Rule provides:
“Offer of compromise not admissible.—In civil cases, an offer of

compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible in evidence against the offeror.”
This Rule is not only a rule of procedure to avoid the

cluttering of the record with unwanted evidence but a
statement of public policy. There is great public interest in
having the protagonists settle their differences amicably
before these ripen into litigation. Every effort must be
taken to encourage them to arrive at a settlement. The
submission of offers and counter-offers in the negotiation
table is a step in the right direction. But to bind a party to
his offers, as what claimants would make this Court do,
would defeat the salutary purpose of the Rule.
G.R. Nos. 105029-32

A NLRC applied the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976, which
provides for greater benefits than those stipulated in the
overseas-employment contracts of the claimants. It was of
the belief that
773
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 773

“where the laws of the host country are more favorable and
beneficial to the workers, then the laws of the host country
shall form part of the overseas employment contract.” It
quoted with approval the observation of the POEA
Administrator that “x x x in labor proceedings, all doubts in
the implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code and
its implementing regulations shall be resolved in favor of
labor” (Rollo, pp. 90-94).
AIBC and BRII claim that NLRC acted capriciously and
whimsically when it refused to enforce the overseas-
employment contracts, which became the law of the
parties. They contend that the principle that a law is
deemed to be a part of a contract applies only to provisions
of a Philippine law in relation to contracts executed in the
Philippines.
The overseas-employment contracts, which were
prepared by AIBC and BRII themselves, provided that the
laws of the host country became applicable to said
contracts if they offer terms and conditions more favorable
than those stipulated therein. It was stipulated in said
contracts that:
“The Employee agrees that while in the employ of the Employer,

he will not engage in any other business or occupation, nor seek
employment with anyone other than the Employer; that he shall
devote his entire time and attention and his best energies, and
abilities to the performance of such duties as may be assigned to
him by the Employer; that he shall at all times be subject to the
direction and control of the Employer; and that the benefits
provided to Employee hereunder are substituted for and in lieu of
all other benefits provided by any applicable law, provided of
course, that total remuneration and benefits do not fall below that
of the host country regulation or custom, it being understood that
should applicable laws establish that fringe benefits, or other such
benefits additional to the compensation herein agreed cannot be
waived. Employee agrees that such compensation will be adjusted
downward so that the total compensation hereunder, plus the
non-waivable benefits shall be equivalent to the compensation
herein agreed” (Rollo, pp. 352-353).
The overseas-employment contracts could have been

drafted more felicitously. While a part thereof provides that
the compensation to the employee may be “adjusted
downward so that the total computation (thereunder) plus
the non-waivable benefits shall be equivalent to the
compensation” therein agreed, another part of the same
provision categorically states “that total
774

remuneration and benefits do not fall below that of the host

country regulation and custom.”
Any ambiguity in the overseas-employment contracts
should be interpreted against AIBC and BRII, the parties
that drafted it (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Margarine-
Verkaufs-Union, 93 SCRA 257 [1979]).
Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
provides:
“The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract

shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.”
Said rule of interpretation is applicable to contracts of

adhesion where there is already a prepared form
containing the stipulations of the employment contract and
the employees merely “take it or leave it.” The presumption
is that there was an imposition by one party against the
other and that the employees signed the contracts out of
necessity that reduced their bargaining power (Fieldmen’s
Insurance Co., Inc. v. Songco, 25 SCRA 70 [1968]).
Applying the said legal precepts, we read the overseas-
employment contracts in question as adopting the
provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as part and
parcel thereof.
The parties to a contract may select the law by which it
is to be governed (Cheshire, Private International Law, 187
[7th ed.]). In such a case, the foreign law is adopted as a
“system” to regulate the relations of the parties, including
questions of their capacity to enter into the contract, the
formalities to be observed by them, matters of performance,
and so forth (16 Am Jur 2d, 150-161).
Instead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign law,
the parties may just agree that specific provisions of a
foreign statute shall be deemed incorporated into their
contract “as a set of terms.” By such reference to the
provisions of the foreign law, the contract does not become
a foreign contract to be governed by the foreign law. The
said law does not operate as a statute but as a set of
contractual terms deemed written in the contract (Anton,
Private International Law, 197 [1967]; Dicey and Morris,
The Conflict of Laws, 702-703, [8th ed.]).
A basic policy of contract is to protect the expectation of
the parties (Reese, Choice of Law in Torts and Contracts,
16 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1, 21 [1977]).
Such party expectation is protected by giving effect to the
parties’ own choice of the
775
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 775

applicable law (Fricke v. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc., 151 F. Supp.

465, 467 [1957]). The choice of law must, however, bear
some relationship to the parties or their transaction (Scoles
and Hayes, Conflict of Law, 644-647 [1982]). There is no
question that the contracts sought to be enforced by
claimants have a direct connection with the Bahrain law
because the services were rendered in that country.
In Norse Management Co. (PTE) v. National Seamen
Board, 117 SCRA 486 (1982), the “Employment
Agreement,” between Norse Management Co. and the late
husband of the private respondent, expressly provided that
in the event of illness or injury to the employee arising out
of and in the course of his employment and not due to his
own misconduct, “compensation shall be paid to employee
in accordance with and subject to the limitation of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act of the Republic of the
Philippines or the Worker’s Insurance Act of registry of the
vessel, whichever is greater.” Since the laws of Singapore,
the place of registry of the vessel in which the late husband
of private respondent served at the time of his death,
granted a better compensation package, we applied said
foreign law in preference to the terms of the contract.
The case of Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corporation v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 135 SCRA 278
(1985), relied upon by AIBC and BRII is inapposite to the
facts of the cases at bench. The issue in that case was
whether the amount of the death compensation of a
Filipino seaman should be determined under the shipboard
employment contract executed in the Philippines or the
Hongkong law. Holding that the shipboard employment
contract was controlling, the Court differentiated said case
from Norse Management Co. in that in the latter case there
was an express stipulation in the employment contract that
the foreign law would be applicable if it afforded greater
compensation.
B. AIBC and BRII claim that they were denied by NLRC
of their right to due process when said administrative
agency granted Friday-pay differential, holiday-pay
differential, annual-leave differential and leave indemnity
pay to the claimants listed in Annex B of the Resolution. At
first, NLRC reversed the resolution of the POEA
Administrator granting these benefits on a finding that the
POEA Administrator failed to consider the
776

evidence presented by AIBC and BRII, that some findings
of fact of the POEA Administrator were not supported by
the evidence, and that some of the evidence were not
disclosed to AIBC and BRII (Rollo, pp. 35-36; 106-107). But
instead of remanding the case to the POEA Administrator
for a new hearing, which means further delay in the
termination of the case, NLRC decided to pass upon the
validity of the claims itself. It is this procedure that AIBC
and BRII complain of as being irregular and a “reversible
error.”
They pointed out that NLRC took into consideration
evidence submitted on appeal, the same evidence which
NLRC found to have been “unilaterally submitted by the
claimants and not disclosed to the adverse parties” (Rollo,
pp. 37-39).
NLRC noted that so many pieces of evidentiary matters
were submitted to the POEA Administrator by the
claimants after the cases were deemed submitted for
resolution and which were taken cognizance of by the
POEA Administrator in resolving the cases. While AIBC
and BRII had no opportunity to refute said evidence of the
claimants before the POEA Administrator, they had all the
opportunity to rebut said evidence and to present their
counter-evidence before NLRC. As a matter of fact, AIBC
and BRII themselves were able to present before NLRC
additional evidence which they failed to present before the
POEA Administrator.
Under Article 221 of the Labor Code of the Philippines,
NLRC is enjoined to “use every and all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and
without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in
the interest of due process.”
In deciding to resolve the validity of certain claims on
the basis of the evidence of both parties submitted before
the POEA Administrator and NLRC, the latter considered
that it was not expedient to remand the cases to the POEA
Administrator for that would only prolong the already
protracted legal controversies.
Even the Supreme Court has decided appealed cases on
the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for
the reception of evidence, where the same can be readily
determined from the uncontroverted facts on record
(Development Bank of the Philippines v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 190 SCRA 653 [1990]; Pagdonsalan v.
National Labor Relations Commission,
777
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 777
127 SCRA 463 [1984]).

C. AIBC and BRII charge NLRC with grave abuse of
discretion when it ordered the POEA Administrator to hold
new hearings for 683 claimants listed in Annex D of the
Resolution dated September 2, 1991 whose claims had been
denied by the POEA Administrator “for lack of proof” and
for 69 claimants listed in Annex E of the same Resolution,
whose claims had been found by NLRC itself as not
“supported by evidence” (Rollo, pp. 41-45).
NLRC based its ruling on Article 218 (c) of the Labor
Code of the Philippines, which empowers it “[to] conduct
investigation for the determination of a question, matter or
controversy, within its jurisdiction, x x x.”
It is the posture of AIBC and BRII that NLRC has no
authority under Article 218(c) to remand a case involving
claims which had already been dismissed because such
provision contemplates only situations where there is still a
question or controversy to be resolved (Rollo, pp. 41-42).
A principle well embedded in Administrative Law is that
the technical rules of procedure and evidence do not apply
to the proceedings conducted by administrative agencies
(First Asian Transport & Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Ople,
142 SCRA 542 [1986]; Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc. v.
Ople, 152 SCRA 219 [1987]). This principle is enshrined in
Article 221 of the Labor Code of the Philippines and is now
the bedrock of proceedings before NLRC.
Notwithstanding the non-applicability of technical rules
of procedure and evidence in administrative proceedings,
there are cardinal rules which must be observed by the
hearing officers in order to comply with the due process
requirements of the Constitution. These cardinal rules are
collated in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69
Phil. 635 (1940).
VIII
The three petitions were filed under Rule 65 of the Revised

Rules of Court on the grounds that NLRC had committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in issuing the questioned orders. We find no such abuse of
discretion.
WHEREFORE, all the three petitions are DISMISSED.
778
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and

Kapunan, JJ., concur.
ANNEX A
LIST OF CLAIMANTS WHO SIGNED QUITCLAIMS
Bienvenido Cadalin Ardon Ello
Antonio Acupan Josefino R. Enano
Benjamin Alejandre Rolando E. Espiritu
Wilfredo Aligada Patricio L. Garcia, Jr.
Robert Batica Felino M. Jocson
Enrico Belen Eduardo S. Kolimlim
Guillermo Cabeza Emmanuel C. Labella
Rodolfo Cagatan Ernesto S. Lising
Francisco De Guzman Edilberto G. Magat
Ignacio De Vera Victoriano L. Matilla
Ernesto De la Cruz Renato V. Morada
Reynaldo Dizon Ildefonso C. Munoz
Ricardo Ebrada Herbert G. Ng
Antonio Ejercito Reynado Oczon
Eduardo Espiritu Romeo Orial
Ernesto Espiritu Ricardo Paguio
Rodolfo Espiritu Emilio Pakingan
Oligario Francisco Ernesto S. Pangan
Antonio Jocson Albert L. Quinto
Alejandro Olorino Romulo M. Reyes
Efren Lirio Leonilo Tiposo
Noel Martinez Manuel P. Villanueva
Francis Mediodia Arnaldo J. Alonzo
Luciano Melendez Pastor M. Aquino
Reymundo Milay Ramon Castro
Jose Pancho Graciano Isla
Modesto Pin Pin Renato Matilla
Gaudencio Retana Ricardo B. Morada
ANNEX A
LIST OF CLAIMANTS WHO SIGNED QUITCLAIMS
Rodelio Rieta, Jr. Pacifico D. Navarro
Jose Robleza Eugenio A. Remonquillo
Nemeriano San Mateo Felix Barcena
Juanito Santos Eliseo Fajardo
Paquito Solanto Sergio S. Santiago
Conrado Solis, Jr. Antonio R. Rodriguez
Menandrano Temprosa Luis Val B. Ronquillo
779
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 779

Maximiano Torres Teodorico C. Del Rosario

Francisco Trias Joselito C. Solante
Delfin Victoria Ricardo C. Dayrit
Gilbert Victoria Antonio P. Hilario
Domingo Villahermosa Edgardo O. Salonga
Rogelio Villanueva Dante C. Aceres
Jose M. Aban Reynaldo S. Acojido
Amorsolo S. Anading Esidro M. Aquino
Alfredo S. Balogo Rosendo M. Aquino
Ramon T. Barboza Rodolfo D. Arevalo
Felix M. Bobier Rexy De Leon Ascuncion
Jose H. Castillo Basilio Buenaventura
Emmanuel H. Castillo Alexander Bustamante
Remar R. Castrojerez Virgilio V. Butiong, Jr.
Romeo O. Cecilio Delfin Caballero
Bayani M. Dayrit Danilo M. Castro
Felizardo S. Delos Santos Francisco O. Corvera
Nestor N. Estava Edgardo N. Dayacap
Rolando M. Garcia Napoleon S. De Luna
Angel D. Guda Benjamin E. Doza
Henry L. Jacob Renato A. Eduarte
Dante A. Matreo Clyde C. Estuye
Renato S. Melo Buenaventura M. Francisco
Resurrecion D. Nazareno Rogelio D. Guanio
Jaime C. Pollos Arnel L. Jacob
Domingo Pondales Renato S. Lising
Eugenio Ramirez Wilfredo S. Lising
Lucien M. Respall Rogelio S. Lopena
Alvin C. Reyes Bernardito G. Loreja
Rizalina R. Reyes Ignacio E. Munoz
Quirino Ronquillo Romeo C. Quintos
Avelino M. Roque Willafredo Dayrit Raymundo
Pedro L. Salgatar Virgilio L. Rosario
Rodolfo T. Sultan Joselito Santiago
Benedicto E. Torres Ernesto G. Sta Maria
Sergio A. Ursolino Gavino U. Tuazon
Rogelio R. Valdez Elito S. Villanueva
Dionisio Bobongo Lamberto Q. Alcantara
Crisenciano Miranda Arturo P. Apilado
Ildefonso C. Molina Turiano V. Concepcion
Gorgonio C. Parala Domingo V. Dela Cruz
Virgilio Ricaza Eduardo R. Enguancho
Palconeri D. Banaag Melanio R. Esteron
Bayani S. Bracamante Santiago N. Galoso
780

Onofre De Rama Joveniano Hilado

Jose C. Melanes Eduardo Hipolito
Romeo I. Patag Romeo M. Javier
Valerio A. Evangelista Valentino S. Jocson
Gilbert E. Ebrada Jose B. Lacson
Juanito P. Villarino Armando M. Magsino
Aristeo M. Bicol Avelino O. Nuqui
Quiterio R. Agudo Delmar F. Pineda
Marianito J. Alcantara Federico T. Quiman
Jose Arevalo Alberto M. Redaza
Ramon A. Arevalo Renosa Ronquillo
Jesus Baya Rodolfo Ronquillo
Guillermo Buenconsejo Antonio T. Valderama
Teresito A. Constantino Ramon Valderama
Eduardo A. Diaz Benigno N. Melendez
Emigdio Abarquez Claudio A. Modesto
Herbert Ayo Solomon Reyes
Mario Bataclan Isaias Talactac
Ricardo Ordonez William G. Taruc
Bernardino Robillos Oscar C. Calderon
Francisco Villaflores Pacifico P. Campano
Angel Villarba Eulalio G. Arguelles
Honesto Jardiniano Ben G. Belir
Juan Y. Olindo Cornelio L. Castillo
Hernani T. Victoriano Valeriano B. Francisco
Ubed B. Ello, Sr. Jaime L. Relosa
Ernesto V. Macaraig Alex Q. Villahermosa
Espiritu A. Munoz, Sr. Vivencio V. Abello, Jr.
Rodrigo E. Ocampo Renato C. Corcuera
Rodolfo V. Ramirez Emiliano B. Dela Cruz, Jr.
Ceferino Batitis Esteban B. Jose, Jr.
Augusto R. Bondoc Ricardo B. Martinez
Jaime C. Catli Bienvenido Vergara
Gerardo B. Limuaco, Jr. Pedro G. Cagatan
Macario S. Magsino Francisco Apolinario
Domingo B. Solano Miguel Abestano
Ricardo De Rama Prudencio Araullo
Arturo V. Araullo
Petitions dismissed.
Notes.—Any ambiguity in a contract whose terms are

susceptible of different interpretations must be read
against the party who drafted it. (Nacu vs. Court of
Appeals, 231 SCRA 237
781
VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 781
Verdejo vs. Court of Appeals
[1994])
The governing principle is that parties may not contract
away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory
provisions dealing with matters heavily impressed with
public interest. The law relating to labor and employment
is clearly such an area and parties are not at liberty to
insulate themselves and their relationships from the
impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting
with each other. (Pakistan International Airlines
Corporation vs. Ople, 190 SCRA 90 [1990])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 721: Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 721: Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 721: Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL.

238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 721

BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL,

BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL., petitioners, vs.

722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

G.R. Nos. 105029-32. December 5, 1994.*

ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDER CORPORATION and

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 723

ILDEFONSO C. MOLINA, ARMANDO B. MONDEJAR,

724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEDRO CAGATAN, JOVEN C. CAGAYAT, ROGELIO L.

726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

DUPA, DANILO C. DURAN, GREGORIO D. DURAN,

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 727

JOCSON, VALENTINO S. JOCSON, PEDRO B. JOLOYA,

728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SANTOS E. MARINO, NARCISO A. MARQUEZ,

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 729

DANTE PUEYO, REYNALDO Q. PUEYO, RODOLFO O.

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

LEVY S. TEMPLO, RODOLFO S. TIAMSON, LEONILO

Conflict of Laws; As a general rule, a foreign procedural law

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 731

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

employee relations, which is broader in scope than claims arising

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 733

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

Actions; Forum Shopping; Before Administrative Circular No.

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 735

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

proceedings before an administrative body even without observing

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

foreign statute shall be deemed incorporated into their contract “as

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 737

Cadalin vs. POEA's Administrator

regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of

The petition in G.R. No. 104776, entitled “Bienvenido M.

(1) to modify the Resolution dated September 2, 1991

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1,767 claimants in said labor cases; (iv) declaring

The petition in G.R. Nos. 104911-14, entitled “Bienvenido

(1) to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991

The petition in G.R. Nos. 105029-32, entitled “Asia

(1) to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991

The Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of NLRC, which

G.R. Nos. 104776 and 105029-32 were originally raffled to

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 739

Second Division. In the Resolution dated July 26, 1993, the

On June 6, 1984, Bienvenido M. Cadalin, Rolando M. Amul

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 238, DECEMBER 5, 1994 741

On November 14, 1984, claimants filed an opposition to the

On September 19, 1985, claimants asked the POEA