Scribd
Upload
257 views1 page

Cadalin V POEA Digest

1. Over 1,700 Filipino workers filed a labor case against their employer's agent in the Philippines regarding additional labor benefits provided by law in Bahrain. 2. The employer argued that the one-year prescriptive period for such cases under Bahrain law should apply. However, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the domestic three-year prescriptive period for labor cases applies, not foreign laws. 3. The Court held that applying foreign prescriptive periods is against public policy when it contradicts domestic labor protections enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.

Uploaded by

Rik Torres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
257 views1 page

Cadalin V POEA Digest

1. Over 1,700 Filipino workers filed a labor case against their employer's agent in the Philippines regarding additional labor benefits provided by law in Bahrain. 2. The employer argued that the one-year prescriptive period for such cases under Bahrain law should apply. However, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the domestic three-year prescriptive period for labor cases applies, not foreign laws. 3. The Court held that applying foreign prescriptive periods is against public policy when it contradicts domestic labor protections enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.

Uploaded by

Rik Torres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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.

(In summary, some hundreds of workers brought a labor case against an agent of their employer in the
Philippines. In Bahrain, the amir there provided for additional labor benefits, but the prescriptive period
is within 1 year only. In the Philippines however, our labor laws says that the prescriptive period is 3
years whilst a civil code provision says that actions based on written contracts prescribe only after 10
years (Art 1144 of CC). POEA and NLRC for the companies. Complainants brought case under Rule 65
alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Issue: on whether the Bahrain prescriptive period will work in the Philippines?

SC ruling: No.

Prescriptive period may be substantive or procedural depending upon the characterization of the law of
the forum. This would have been immaterial if we had utilized a “borrowing” statute. But we aren’t
using a borrowing statute. More so, a jurisprudential authority in US stipulates that unless the foreign
country’s prescriptive period is expressly made to apply to foreign cases, it wouldn’t be made to apply in
the foreign forum. Also, the 1 year prescriptive period by the Bahrain law would be against public policy
as there is a constitutional provision protecting the rights of labor.)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy