Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity
as Presiding Judge of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, respondents.

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the
Resolution 1dated September 27, 1995 and the Decision 2 dated April 10, 1996 of the Court of Appeals 3 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 36533, 4and the Orders 5 dated August 29, 1994 6 and February 2, 1995 7 that were issued
by the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-93-18394. 8

The pertinent antecedent facts which gave rise to the instant petition, as stated in the questioned
Decision 9, are as follows:

On January 21, 1988 defendant SAUDIA hired plaintiff as a Flight Attendant for its
airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. . . .

On April 27, 1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff went to a disco
dance with fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both
Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they returned to their hotels,
they agreed to have breakfast together at the room of Thamer. When they were in te
(sic) room, Allah left on some pretext. Shortly after he did, Thamer attempted to rape
plaintiff. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for
help and rescued her. Later, the Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and
Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice.

When plaintiff returned to Jeddah a few days later, several SAUDIA officials
interrogated her about the Jakarta incident. They then requested her to go back to
Jakarta to help arrange the release of Thamer and Allah. In Jakarta, SAUDIA Legal
Officer Sirah Akkad and base manager Baharini negotiated with the police for the
immediate release of the detained crew members but did not succeed because
plaintiff refused to cooperate. She was afraid that she might be tricked into
something she did not want because of her inability to understand the local dialect.
She also declined to sign a blank paper and a document written in the local dialect.
Eventually, SAUDIA allowed plaintiff to return to Jeddah but barred her from the
Jakarta flights.

Plaintiff learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi Arabian government, the
Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of
detention. Eventually, they were again put in service by defendant SAUDI (sic). In
September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to Manila.

On January 14, 1992, just when plaintiff thought that the Jakarta incident was already
behind her, her superiors requested her to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of
SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the police

station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta
incident. Miniewy simply stood by as the police put pressure on her to make a
statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so
did the police return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of
Jeddah.

One year and a half later or on lune 16, 1993, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a few minutes
before the departure of her flight to Manila, plaintiff was not allowed to board the
plane and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Miniewy, the
Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA. When she did, a certain Khalid of the SAUDIA office
brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a document written in
Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and
Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court on
June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then returned to Manila.

Shortly afterwards, defendant SAUDIA summoned plaintiff to report to Jeddah once

again and see Miniewy on June 27, 1993 for further investigation. Plaintiff did so after
receiving assurance from SAUDIA's Manila manager, Aslam Saleemi, that the
investigation was routinary and that it posed no danger to her.

In Jeddah, a SAUDIA legal officer brought plaintiff to the same Saudi court on June
27, 1993. Nothing happened then but on June 28, 1993, a Saudi judge interrogated
plaintiff through an interpreter about the Jakarta incident. After one hour of
interrogation, they let her go. At the airport, however, just as her plane was about to
take off, a SAUDIA officer told her that the airline had forbidden her to take flight. At
the Inflight Service Office where she was told to go, the secretary of Mr. Yahya
Saddick took away her passport and told her to remain in Jeddah, at the crew
quarters, until further orders.

On July 3, 1993 a SAUDIA legal officer again escorted plaintiff to the same court
where the judge, to her astonishment and shock, rendered a decision, translated to
her in English, sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only
then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with Thamer and
Allah, for what happened in Jakarta. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; (2)
going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and
(3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition.

10

Facing conviction, private respondent sought the help of her employer, petitioner SAUDIA.
Unfortunately, she was denied any assistance. She then asked the Philippine Embassy in Jeddah to
help her while her case is on appeal. Meanwhile, to pay for her upkeep, she worked on the domestic
flight

of

SAUDIA,

while

Thamer

and

Allah

continued

to

serve

in

the

international

flights. 11

Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her and
allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly before her return to Manila,

12

she was terminated from the

service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause.

On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint

13

for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-

Balawi ("Al-Balawi"), its country manager.

On January 19, 1994, SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss

14

which raised the following

grounds, to wit: (1) that the Complaint states no cause of action against Saudia; (2) that defendant AlBalawi is not a real party in interest; (3) that the claim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been
waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and (4) that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the
case.

On February 10, 1994, Morada filed her Opposition (To Motion to Dismiss) 15. Saudia filed a
reply 16 thereto on March 3, 1994.

On June 23, 1994, Morada filed an Amended Complaint

17

wherein Al-Balawi was dropped as party

defendant. On August 11, 1994, Saudia filed its Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint 18.

The trial court issued an Order

19

dated August 29, 1994 denying the Motion to Dismiss Amended

Complaint filed by Saudia.

From the Order of respondent Judge 20 denying the Motion to Dismiss, SAUDIA filed on September 20,
1994, its Motion for Reconsideration

21

of the Order dated August 29, 1994. It alleged that the trial court

has no jurisdiction to hear and try the case on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code, since the proper
law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On October 14, 1994, Morada filed her
Opposition 22 (To Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration).

In the Reply 23 filed with the trial court on October 24, 1994, SAUDIA alleged that since its Motion for
Reconsideration raised lack of jurisdiction as its cause of action, the Omnibus Motion Rule does not
apply, even if that ground is raised for the first time on appeal. Additionally, SAUDIA alleged that the
Philippines does not have any substantial interest in the prosecution of the instant case, and hence,
without jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.

Respondent Judge subsequently issued another Order

24

dated February 2, 1995, denying SAUDIA's

Motion for Reconsideration. The pertinent portion of the assailed Order reads as follows:

Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant Saudi Arabian Airlines filed,
thru counsel, on September 20, 1994, and the Opposition thereto of the plaintiff filed,
thru counsel, on October 14, 1994, as well as the Reply therewith of defendant Saudi
Arabian Airlines filed, thru counsel, on October 24, 1994, considering that a perusal
of the plaintiffs Amended Complaint, which is one for the recovery of actual, moral
and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees, upon the basis of the applicable
Philippine law, Article 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, is, clearly, within
the jurisdiction of this Court as regards the subject matter, and there being nothing

new of substance which might cause the reversal or modification of the order sought
to be reconsidered, the motion for reconsideration of the defendant, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 25

Consequently, on February 20, 1995, SAUDIA filed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order

26

with the

Court of Appeals.

Respondent Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution with Temporary Restraining Order

27

dated

February 23, 1995, prohibiting the respondent Judge from further conducting any proceeding, unless
otherwise directed, in the interim.

In another Resolution 28 promulgated on September 27, 1995, now assailed, the appellate court denied
SAUDIA's Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated February 18, 1995, to wit:

The Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED,
after considering the Answer, with Prayer to Deny Writ of Preliminary Injunction
(Rollo, p. 135) the Reply and Rejoinder, it appearing that herein petitioner is not
clearly entitled thereto (Unciano Paramedical College, et. Al., v. Court of Appeals,
et. Al., 100335, April 7, 1993, Second Division).

SO ORDERED.

On October 20, 1995, SAUDIA filed with this Honorable Court the instant Petition

29

for Review with

Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order dated October 13, 1995.

However, during the pendency of the instant Petition, respondent Court of Appeals rendered the
Decision 30 dated April 10, 1996, now also assailed. It ruled that the Philippines is an appropriate forum
considering that the Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of damages is Article 21 of the Civil Code,
and thus, clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Court. It further held that certiorari is not the proper

remedy in a denial of a Motion to Dismiss, inasmuch as the petitioner should have proceeded to trial, and
in case of an adverse ruling, find recourse in an appeal.

On May 7, 1996, SAUDIA filed its Supplemental Petition for Review with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order31 dated April 30, 1996, given due course by this Court. After both parties submitted
their Memoranda, 32 the instant case is now deemed submitted for decision.

Petitioner SAUDIA raised the following issues:

The trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try Civil Case No. Q-93-18394 based
on Article 21 of the New Civil Code since the proper law applicable is the law of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia inasmuch as this case involves what is known in private
international law as a "conflicts problem". Otherwise, the Republic of the Philippines
will sit in judgment of the acts done by another sovereign state which is abhorred.

II

Leave of court before filing a supplemental pleading is not a jurisdictional

requirement. Besides, the matter as to absence of leave of court is now moot and
academic when this Honorable Court required the respondents to comment on
petitioner's April 30, 1996 Supplemental Petition For Review With Prayer For A
Temporary Restraining Order Within Ten (10) Days From Notice Thereof. Further, the
Revised Rules of Court should be construed with liberality pursuant to Section 2,
Rule 1 thereof.

III

Petitioner received on April 22, 1996 the April 10, 1996 decision in CA-G.R. SP NO.
36533 entitled "Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, et al." and filed its
April 30, 1996 Supplemental Petition For Review With Prayer For A Temporary
Restraining Order on May 7, 1996 at 10:29 a.m. or within the 15-day reglementary
period as provided for under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Therefore, the decision in CA-G.R. SP NO. 36533 has not yet become final and
executory and this Honorable Court can take cognizance of this case.

33

From the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents, the following issues emerge for our
resolution:

I.

WHETHER RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
TRY CIVIL CASE NO. Q-93-18394 ENTITLED "MILAGROS P. MORADA V. SAUDI
ARABIAN AIRLINES".

II.

WHETHER RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT IN THIS

CASE PHILIPPINE LAW SHOULD GOVERN.

Petitioner SAUDIA claims that before us is a conflict of laws that must be settled at the outset. It
maintains that private respondent's claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. It alleges that the existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case for the
application of the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule. 34

On the other hand, private respondent contends that since her Amended Complaint is based on
Articles 19 35 and 21 36 of the Civil Code, then the instant case is properly a matter of domestic law. 37

Under the factual antecedents obtaining in this case, there is no dispute that the interplay of events
occurred in two states, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia.

As stated by private respondent in her Amended Complaint 38 dated June 23, 1994:

2. Defendant SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES or SAUDIA is a foreign airlines corporation

doing business in the Philippines. It may be served with summons and other court
processes at Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.). Inc., 3rd Floor, Cougar Building,
114 Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati, Metro Manila.

xxx xxx xxx

6. Plaintiff learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi Arabian government,
the Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of
detention. Eventually, they were again put in service by defendant SAUDIA. In
September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to Manila.

7. On January 14, 1992, just when plaintiff thought that the Jakarta incident was
already behind her, her superiors reauested her to see MR. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal
Officer of SAUDIA in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to
the police station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the
Jakarta incident. Miniewy simply stood by as the police put pressure on her to make
a statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do
so did the police return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out
of Jeddah.

8. One year and a half later or on June 16, 1993, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a few
minutes before the departure of her flight to Manila, plaintiff was not allowed to board
the plane and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Meniewy, the

Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA. When she did, a certain Khalid of the SAUDIA office
brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sigh a document written in
Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and
Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court on
June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then returned to Manila.

9. Shortly afterwards, defendant SAUDIA summoned plaintiff to report to Jeddah

once again and see Miniewy on June 27, 1993 for further investigation. Plaintiff did
so after receiving assurance from SAUDIA's Manila manger, Aslam Saleemi, that the
investigation was routinary and that it posed no danger to her.

10. In Jeddah, a SAUDIA legal officer brought plaintiff to the same Saudi court on
June 27, 1993. Nothing happened then but on June 28, 1993, a Saudi judge
interrogated plaintiff through an interpreter about the Jakarta incident. After one hour
of interrogation, they let her go. At the airport, however, just as her plane was about
to take off, a SAUDIA officer told her that the airline had forbidden her to take that
flight. At the Inflight Service Office where she was told to go, the secretary of Mr.
Yahya Saddick took away her passport and told her to remain in Jeddah, at the crew
quarters, until further orders.

11. On July 3, 1993 a SAUDIA legal officer again escorted plaintiff to the same court
where the judge, to her astonishment and shock, rendered a decision, translated to
her in English, sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only
then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with Thamer and
Allah, for what happened in Jakarta. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; (2)
going to a disco, dancing, and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; (3)
socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition.

12. Because SAUDIA refused to lend her a hand in the case, plaintiff sought the help
of the Philippines Embassy in Jeddah. The latter helped her pursue an appeal from
the decision of the court. To pay for her upkeep, she worked on the domestic flights
of defendant SAUDIA while, ironically, Thamer and Allah freely served the
international flights. 39

Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree
with petitioner that the problem herein could present a "conflicts" case.

A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more
states is said to contain a "foreign element". The presence of a foreign element is inevitable since
social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely confined to the geographic
limits of their birth or conception. 40

The forms in which this foreign element may appear are many.

41

The foreign element may simply

consist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a
contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State. In other cases, the
foreign element may assume a complex form.

42

In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a
resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by
virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did
transpire during her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila,
Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.

We thus find private respondent's assertion that the case is purely domestic, imprecise.
A conflicts problem presents itself here, and the question of jurisdiction

After a careful study of the private respondent's Amended Complaint,

44

43

confronts the court a quo.

and the Comment thereon, we

note that she aptly predicated her cause of action on Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code.

On one hand, Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides:

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.

On the other hand, Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides:

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
damages.

Thus, in Philippine National Bank (PNB) vs. Court of Appeals, 45 this Court held that:

The aforecited provisions on human relations were intended to expand the concept
of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of
moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the
statutes.

Although Article 19 merely declares a principle of law, Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions. Thus,
we agree with private respondent's assertion that violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with
judicially enforceable remedies in the municipal forum.

Based on the allegations 46 in the Amended Complaint, read in the light of the Rules of Court on
jurisdiction 47 we find that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the suit. 48 Its authority to try and hear the case is provided for under Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 7691, to wit:

Sec. 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction:

xxx xxx xxx

(8) In all other cases in which demand, exclusive of interest,

damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
cots or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro
Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items
exceeds Two hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00). (Emphasis
ours)

xxx xxx xxx

And following Section 2 (b), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court the venue, Quezon City, is
appropriate:

Sec. 2 Venue in Courts of First Instance. [Now Regional Trial Court]

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) Personal actions. All other actions may be commenced and tried where the
defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or
any of the plaintiff resides, at the election of the plaintiff.

Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the
RTC Quezon City assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of the litigant.
Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to
a fair trial are equally important. Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex",

"harass", or "oppress" the defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or disturbance.
But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should
rarely be disturbed. 49

Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found it best to hear the case in the
Philippines. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plaintiff (private
respondent now) to seek remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she
no longer maintains substantial connections. That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to
her.

Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have
been shown by either of the parties. The choice of forum of the plaintiff (now private respondent)
should be upheld.

Similarly, the trial court also possesses jurisdiction over the persons of the parties herein. By filing
her Complaint and Amended Complaint with the trial court, private respondent has voluntary
submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court.

The records show that petitioner SAUDIA has filed several motions

50

praying for the dismissal of

Morada's Amended Complaint. SAUDIA also filed an Answer In Ex Abundante Cautelam dated February
20, 1995. What is very patent and explicit from the motions filed, is that SAUDIA prayed for other reliefs
under the premises. Undeniably, petitioner SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction
by praying for the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction.

As held by this Court in Republic vs. Ker and Company, Ltd.: 51

We observe that the motion to dismiss filed on April 14, 1962, aside from disputing
the lower court's jurisdiction over defendant's person, prayed for dismissal of the
complaint on the ground that plaintiff's cause of action has prescribed. By interposing
such second ground in its motion to dismiss, Ker and Co., Ltd. availed of an

affirmative defense on the basis of which it prayed the court to resolve controversy in
its favor. For the court to validly decide the said plea of defendant Ker & Co., Ltd., it
necessarily had to acquire jurisdiction upon the latter's person, who, being the
proponent of the affirmative defense, should be deemed to have abandoned its
special appearance and voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Similarly, the case of De Midgely vs. Ferandos, held that;

When the appearance is by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of
the court over the person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting
to the jurisdiction of the court. If his motion is for any other purpose than to object to
the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. A special appearance by motion made for the purpose of
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person will be held to be a general
appearance, if the party in said motion should, for example, ask for a dismissal of the
action upon the further ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter. 52

Clearly, petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Thus,
we find that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case and that its exercise thereof, justified.

As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two
important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the
significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal
system regulate the situation. 53

Several theories have been propounded in order to identify the legal system that should ultimately
control. Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of justice

and predictability, they do not always do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding
which of these two important values should be stressed.

54

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set
of facts or rules fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It
is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a
conflicts rule." 55 The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law. 56

Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative
fact. 57 An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or "point of
contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right, contract
claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration,
the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing.

58

Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the
determination of the applicable law. 59 These "test factors" or "points of contact" or "connecting factors"
could be any of the following:

(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his
origin;

(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;

(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated.
In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;

(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where
a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed.
The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;

(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of
performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be
exercised;

(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their
agreement, the lex loci intentionis;

(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done.
The lex fori the law of the forum is particularly important because, as we have
seen earlier, matters of "procedure" not going to the substance of the claim involved
are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the
otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the
reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and

(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal
relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual
relationships particularly contracts of affreightment. 60 (Emphasis ours.)

After a careful study of the pleadings on record, including allegations in the Amended Complaint
deemed admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss, we are convinced that there is reasonable
basis for private respondent's assertion that although she was already working in Manila, petitioner
brought her to Jeddah on the pretense that she would merely testify in an investigation of the
charges she made against the two SAUDIA crew members for the attack on her person while they
were in Jakarta. As it turned out, she was the one made to face trial for very serious charges,
including adultery and violation of Islamic laws and tradition.

There is likewise logical basis on record for the claim that the "handing over" or "turning over" of the
person of private respondent to Jeddah officials, petitioner may have acted beyond its duties as
employer. Petitioner's purported act contributed to and amplified or even proximately caused

additional humiliation, misery and suffering of private respondent. Petitioner thereby allegedly
facilitated the arrest, detention and prosecution of private respondent under the guise of petitioner's
authority as employer, taking advantage of the trust, confidence and faith she reposed upon it. As
purportedly found by the Prince of Makkah, the alleged conviction and imprisonment of private
respondent was wrongful. But these capped the injury or harm allegedly inflicted upon her person
and reputation, for which petitioner could be liable as claimed, to provide compensation or redress
for the wrongs done, once duly proven.

Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or
"point of contact" could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred.
And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a
situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is in the
Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working
here. According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights
and in the performance of its duties, "act with justice, give her due and observe honesty and good
faith." Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury
allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view what is important here is the
place where the over-all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social
standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein
private respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the
alleged tort.

Moreover, with the widespread criticism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti commissi, modern
theories and rules on tort liability

61

have been advanced to offer fresh judicial approaches to arrive at

just results. In keeping abreast with the modern theories on tort liability, we find here an occasion to apply
the "State of the most significant relationship" rule, which in our view should be appropriate to apply now,
given the factual context of this case.

In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship, the
following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance
with respect to the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the
conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation
and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the
parties is centered. 62

As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the
Philippines. There is likewise no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina national,
working with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international
air carriage. Thus, the "relationship" between the parties was centered here, although it should be
stressed that this suit is not based on mere labor law violations. From the record, the claim that the
Philippines has the most significant contact with the matter in this dispute, 63raised by private
respondent as plaintiff below against defendant (herein petitioner), in our view, has been properly
established.

Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the tort complained of and the place
"having the most interest in the problem", we find, by way of recapitulation, that the Philippine law on
tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the resolution of the legal issues
arising out of this case. Further, we hold that the respondent Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter of the complaint; the appropriate venue is in Quezon City,
which could properly apply Philippine law. Moreover, we find untenable petitioner's insistence that
"[s]ince private respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of pleading and proving the
applicable Saudi law on the matter."

64

As aptly said by private respondent, she has "no obligation to

plead and prove the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is based on Articles 19
and 21" of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In her Amended Complaint and subsequent pleadings, she
never alleged that Saudi law should govern this case.

65

And as correctly held by the respondent appellate

court, "considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking the applicability of the law of Saudi Arabia,
then the burden was on it [petitioner] to plead and to establish what the law of Saudi Arabia is".

66

Lastly, no error could be imputed to the respondent appellate court in upholding the trial court's
denial of defendant's (herein petitioner's) motion to dismiss the case. Not only was jurisdiction in
order and venue properly laid, but appeal after trial was obviously available, and expeditious trial
itself indicated by the nature of the case at hand. Indubitably, the Philippines is the state intimately
concerned with the ultimate outcome of the case below, not just for the benefit of all the litigants, but
also for the vindication of the country's system of law and justice in a transnational setting. With
these guidelines in mind, the trial court must proceed to try and adjudge the case in the light of
relevant Philippine law, with due consideration of the foreign element or elements involved. Nothing
said herein, of course, should be construed as prejudging the results of the case in any manner
whatsoever.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Civil Case No. Q-93-18394
entitled "Milagros P. Morada vs. Saudi Arabia Airlines" is hereby REMANDED to Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch 89 for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Annex "A", PETITION, October 13, 1995; rollo, p. 36.

2 Annex "A", SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION, April 30, 1996; rollo, pp. 88-102.

3 Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo Ll. Salas, and concurred in by Associate

Justice Jorge S. Imperial and Associate Justice Pacita Caizares-Nye.

4 Entitled "Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of Branch 89 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and
Milagros P. Morada".

5 Issued by respondent Judge Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz of Branch 89, Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City.

6 Annex "B", PETITION, October 13, 1995; rollo, pp. 37-39.

7 Annex "B", PETITION, October 13, 1995; rollo, p. 40.

8 Entitled "Milagros P. Morada vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines".

9 Supra, note 2.

10 Decision, pp. 2-4; see rollo, pp. 89-91.

11 Private respondent's Comment; rollo, p. 50.

12 Ibid., pp. 50-51.

13 Dated November 19, 1993, and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-18394, Branch
89, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

14 Dated January 14, 1994.

15 Dated February 4, 1994.

16 Reply dated March 1, 1994.

17 Records, pp. 65-84.

18 Rollo, p. 65.

19 Supra, note 6.

20 Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz.

21 Dated September 19, 1994.

22 Records, pp. 108-116.

23 Records, pp. 117-128.

24 Supra, note 7.

25 Ibid.

26 Dated February 18, 1995; see supra, note 4.

27 Supra, note 7.

28 Records, p. 180.

29 Rollo, pp. 1-44.

30 Supra, note 2.

31 Rollo, pp. 80-86.

32 Memorandum for Petitioner dated October 9, 1996, rollo, pp. 149-180; and
Memorandum for Private Respondent, October 30, 1996, rollo, pp. 182-210.

33 Rollo, pp. 157-159. All caps in the original.

34 Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 14, rollo, p. 162.

35 Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.

36 Art 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damages.

37 Memorandum for Private Respondent, p. 9, rollo, p. 190.

38 Records, pp. 65-71.

39 Supra, note 17, pp. 65-68.

40 Salonga, Private International Law, 1995 edition, p. 3.

41 Ibid., citing Cheshire and North, Private International Law, p. 5 by P.M. North and
J.J. Faucett (Butterworths; London, 1992).

42 Ibid.

43 Paras, Philippine Conflict of Laws, sixth edition (1984), p. 24, citing Leflar, The
Law of Conflict of Laws, pp. 5-6.

44 Supra, note 17.

45 83 SCRA 237, 247.

46 Supra, note at 17, at p. 6. Morada prays that judgment be rendered against

Saudia, ordering it to pay: (1) not less than P250,000.00 as actual damages; (2) P4

million in moral damages; (3) P500,000.00 in exemplary damages, and (4)

P500,000.00 in attorney's fees.

47 Baguioro v. Barrios, 77 Phil. 120.

48 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is defined as the
authority of a court to hear and decide cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong. (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484, 487)

49 Supra, note 37, p. 58, citing Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 350 U.S. 501, 67 Sup.
Ct. 839 (1947).

50 Omnibus Motion to Dismiss dated January 14, 1994; Reply (to Plaintiff's
Opposition) dated February 19, 1994; Comment (to Plaintiffs Motion to Admit
Amended Complaint dated June 23, 1994) dated July 20, 1993; Manifestation and
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint dated June 23, 1994 under date August 11,
1994; and Motion for Reconsideration dated September 19, 1994.

51 18 SCRA 207, 213-214.

52 64 SCRA 23, 31.

53 Coquia and Pangalangan. Conflict of Laws, 1995 edition p. 65, citing Von
Mehren, Recent Trends in Choice-of-Law Methodology, 60 Cornell L. Rev. 927
(1975).

54 Ibid.

55 Supra, note 40 at p. 94, citing Falconbridge, Essays on the Conflict of Laws, p.

50.

56 Ibid.

57 Supra, note 37, at p. 136; cf. Mussbaum, Principle of Private International Law, p.
173; and Rabel, The Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study, pp. 51-52.

58 Supra, note 37, p. 137.

59 Ibid.

60 Supra, note 37, at pp. 138-139.

61 Includes the (1) German rule of elective concurrence; (2) "State of the most
significant relationship" rule (the Second Restatement of 1969); (3) State interest
analysis; and (4) Caver's Principle of Preference.

62 Supra, note 37, p. 396.

63 Supra, note 59, p. 79, citing Ruben v. Irving Trust Co., 305 N.Y. 288, 305, 113
N.E. 2d 424, 431.

64 Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 22; rollo, p. 170.

65 Memorandum for Private Respondent, pp. 21-22; rollo, pp. 202-203.

66 CA Decision, p. 10; rollo, p. 97.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-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 ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND/OR ASIA
INTERNATIONAL 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.

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, ALEJANDRO 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, 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 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, EMELIANO 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, 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. CASTAEDA,
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,

AMELIANO 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 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. 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, GUADENCIO
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, WILFREDO 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, 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,
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, REYNALDO
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.,
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,
VILLAHERMOZA,

EDGARDO
DANILO

G.
A.

VILLAFLORES,

VILLANUEVA,

CEFERINO

ELITO

VILLAGERA,

VILLANUEVA,

ALEX

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.

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 Administration'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 and Root International Inc. (BRII) to pay the claims of the 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

(2) to reverse the Resolution dated March 24, 1992 of NLRC, denying the motion for
reconsideration of its Resolution dated September 2, 1991 (Rollo, pp. 8-25; 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

(2) to reverse the Resolution dated March 21, 1992 of 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 POEA in 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 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. 10502930, 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. 10491114, 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. L84-06-555). 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, 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.

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 complainant's 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.

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-8510-777) 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, the 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 Arguelles 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 "ExParte 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 CounterSupplemental 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 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 reglamentary 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;

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. 105029-31, 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 (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 coclaimants 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 copetitioners dated September 3, 1992 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 364-507);

3)

Joint

Manifestation

and

Motion

involving

claimant

Jose

M. Aban and 36 co-claimants dated September 17, 1992 (G.R. Nos. 10502932, Rollo, pp. 613-722; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 518-626; G.R. Nos. 10491114, Rollo, pp. 407-516);

4) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Antonio T. Anglo and 17 coclaimants

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);

5) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Dionisio Bobongo and 6 coclaimants dated January 15, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 813-836; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 629-652);

6) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Valerio A. Evangelista and 4 coclaimants 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 coclaimants dated March 17, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1657-1703; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 655-675);

8) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant 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 coclaimants 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);

11) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Arnaldo J. Alonzo and 19 coclaimants 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, Rollo, pp. 896-959);

12) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Ricardo C. Dayrit and 2 coclaimants

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);

13) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Dante C. Aceres and 37 coclaimants 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. 10491114).

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 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 xxx 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 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 xxx 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 complainantsappellants are as follows (italics supplied only for emphasis):

Art. 79: . . . A worker shall receive payment for each extra hour
equivalent to his wage entitlement increased by a minimum of twentyfive 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. . . .

Art. 80: Friday shall be deemed to be a weekly day of rest on full pay.

. . . an employer may require a worker, with his consent, to work on

his weekly day of rest if circumstances so require and in respect of
which an additional sum equivalent to 150% of his normal wage shall
be paid to him. . . .

Art. 81: . . . 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: . . . 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
(R.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 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 are 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;

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. 10491114, 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.

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) the 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;

(3) that the POEA Administrator has no jurisdiction 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 not established; and

(6) that the POEA Administrator has no jurisdiction 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) the 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).

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-86-05460 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 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 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 petitioner's 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 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

factoamended

the

worker's

contracts

of

employment.

Respondents consciously failed to conform to these provisions which specifically

provide for the increase of the worker's 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 amendments 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:

Art. 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, 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:

The Labor Code provides that "all money claims arising from employer-employee
relations . . . 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:

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 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. 105029-31, 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, 131 [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 Philippines Islands.

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 Procedures 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:

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.

xxx xxx xxx

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, . . . .

The court further explained:

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

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

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

violation of the employee's right," as provided by the Labor Code supported by the facial reading of
the provision.

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.

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.

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 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).

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-8605-460). 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:

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 complainants, 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 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 claimants 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.

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 an 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. 841-844).

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.

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 xxx 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 . . . .

2. The average wage per hour for the Philippino (sic) employee is US$2.69 . . . .

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 for the

difference of the wages of the overtime done for each Philippino (sic) employee . . .
(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 amicable 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 "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 ". . . 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 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 that 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 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 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 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, 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,
. . . ."

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.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, 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. Muoz
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 Manual 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
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. Rodriquez
Menandro Temprosa Luis Val B. Ronquillo
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 Franscisco 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. Muoz
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
Onofre De Rama Joveniano Hilado
Jose C. Melanes Eduardo Hipolito
Romeo I. Patag Romero 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