7/27/2019 Conflicts Digest-Cadalin vs POEZ.docx

1/1

CADALIN VS POEA

FACTS:

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 claimsarising from their recruitment by AIBC, which 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; and employment by BRII, which is a foreign corporation with headquarters in

Houston, Texas, and is engaged in construction. 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.

ISSUE:

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.

HELD:

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. 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 alaw. 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.

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.