12 Augustine International vs. Bartolome
Uploaded by
mei atienza12 Augustine International vs. Bartolome
Uploaded by
mei atienzaAUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER, INC., petitioner vs. ELFRENITO B.
BARTOLOME and RUMBY L. YAMAT, respondent.
[G.R. No. 226578. January 28, 2019..]
FACTS:
In 2010, respondents Elfrenito B. Bartolome and Rumby L. Yamat applied as carpenter
and tile setter, respectively, with petitioner Augustin International Center Inc. (AICI), an
employment agency providing human resources to foreign corporations.
They were eventually engaged by Golden Arrow Company Ltd., which had its office in
Khartoum, Republic of Sudan. They signed their respective employment contracts stating that
they would render services for a period of not less than 24 months. Their contracts included a
provision that all claims and complaints relative to their employment must be settled in
accordance with company policies, rules and regulations. Should the employee contest the
employer’s decision, the matter will be settled amicably with the participation of the labor
attaché or any authorized representative of the Philippine Embassy nearest the site of
employment.
On May 2, 2012, they were dismissed from the service by Al Mamoun Trading and
Investment Company (Al Mamoun), AICI’s sister company, where they were transferred. In a
complaint for illegal dismissal, breach of contract and payment of unexpired portion of the
contract filed by respondents against AICI and Al Mamoun, the latter in their motion for
reconsideration before the Court of Appeals (CA) invoked for the first time the defense that
they
were denied due process because respondents did not first contest their termination “before
the
Labor Attaché or any authorized representative of the Philippine Embassy nearest the site of
employment” as stipulated in their employment contracts, before filing the complaint before
the
Labor Arbiter (LA).
ISSUE: Whether or not the LA correctly took cognizance of the case despite the presence of a
provision in the employment contract on dispute settlement.
HELD: YES. Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) 8042, as amended by RA 10022, explicitly
provides that LA’s have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising out of employer-
employee relations or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment, as in this case. The relevant portion of the provision reads:
Section 10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after filing of the complaint,
the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract
involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages.
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and
cannot be acquired or waived by agreement of the parties. As herein applied, the dispute
settlement provision in respondents’ employment contracts cannot divest the LA of its
jurisdiction over the
illegal dismissal case. Hence, it correctly took cognizance of the complaint filed by respondents
before it.
Moreover, issues not raised in the previous proceedings cannot be raised for the first
time at a late stage. In this case, the Court observes that AICI failed to raise the issue of
respondents’ supposed noncompliance with the dispute settlement provision before the LA, as
well as before the NLRC. In fact, AICI only mentioned this issue for the first time before the CA
in its motion for reconsideration. Therefore, such argument or defense is deemed waived and
can no longer be considered on appeal. Hence, the Court rules that the LA properly took
cognizance of this case.