Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    Cadalin Vs Poea Administrator 238 Scra 721

    Uploaded by

    Jing Goal Merit
    The plaintiffs were Filipino workers in Bahrain whose employment contracts were prematurely terminated after one year of work. They filed a suit with the POEA for money claims arising from the unexpired portion of their contracts. There was disagreement over which prescription period - the period to file a claim - should apply: 1) Bahrain's 1 year period from contract expiration as provided in its labor law; 2) the Philippines' 10 year period for contract violations; or 3) the Philippines' 3 year period for labor claims under its Labor Code. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while foreign procedural law can be applied under the borrowing statute, Bahrain's 1 year period violated Philippine public policy on labor. Therefore, the 3 year period under

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cadalin Vs Poea Administrator 238 Scra 721

    Uploaded by

    Jing Goal Merit
    89 views1 page
    The plaintiffs were Filipino workers in Bahrain whose employment contracts were prematurely terminated after one year of work. They filed a suit with the POEA for money claims arising from the unexpired portion of their contracts. There was disagreement over which prescription period - the period to file a claim - should apply: 1) Bahrain's 1 year period from contract expiration as provided in its labor law; 2) the Philippines' 10 year period for contract violations; or 3) the Philippines' 3 year period for labor claims under its Labor Code. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while foreign procedural law can be applied under the borrowing statute, Bahrain's 1 year period violated Philippine public policy on labor. Therefore, the 3 year period under

    Original Description:

    case digest doctrine enshrined

    Original Title

    Cadalin vs Poea Administrator 238 Scra 721

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs were Filipino workers in Bahrain whose employment contracts were prematurely terminated after one year of work. They filed a suit with the POEA for money claims arising from the unexpired portion of their contracts. There was disagreement over which prescription period - the period to file a claim - should apply: 1) Bahrain's 1 year period from contract expiration as provided in its labor law; 2) the Philippines' 10 year period for contract violations; or 3) the Philippines' 3 year period for labor claims under its Labor Code. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while foreign procedural law can be applied under the borrowing statute, Bahrain's 1 year period violated Philippine public policy on labor. Therefore, the 3 year period under

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    89 views1 page

    Cadalin Vs Poea Administrator 238 Scra 721

    Uploaded by

    Jing Goal Merit
    The plaintiffs were Filipino workers in Bahrain whose employment contracts were prematurely terminated after one year of work. They filed a suit with the POEA for money claims arising from the unexpired portion of their contracts. There was disagreement over which prescription period - the period to file a claim - should apply: 1) Bahrain's 1 year period from contract expiration as provided in its labor law; 2) the Philippines' 10 year period for contract violations; or 3) the Philippines' 3 year period for labor claims under its Labor Code. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while foreign procedural law can be applied under the borrowing statute, Bahrain's 1 year period violated Philippine public policy on labor. Therefore, the 3 year period under

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    CADALIN vs POEA ADMINISTRATOR 238 SCRA 721

    Facts:
    Cadalin et al. are Filipino workers recruited by Asia Intl Builders Co. (AIBC), a domestic recruitment
    corporation, for employment in Bahrain to work for Brown & Root Intl Inc. (BRII) which is a foreign
    corporation with headquarters in Texas. Plaintiff instituted a class suit with the POEA for money claims
    arising from the unexpired portion of their employment contract which was prematurely terminated.
    They worked in Bahrain for BRII and they filed the suit after 1 yr. from the termination of their
    employment contract.

    As provided by Art. 156 of the Amiri Decree aka as the Labor Law of the Private Sector of
    Bahrain: a claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of 1
    year from the date of the expiry of the contract, it appears that their suit has prescribed.

    Plaintiff contends that the prescription period should be 10 years as provided by Art. 1144 of the
    Civil Code as their claim arise from a violation of a contract.

    The POEA Administrator holds that the 10 year period of prescription should be applied but the NLRC
    provides a different view asserting that Art 291 of the Labor Code of the Phils with a 3 years
    prescription period should be applied. The Solicitor General expressed his personal point of view
    that the 1 yr period provided by the Amiri Decree should be applied.

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court held that as a general rule a foreign procedural law will not be applied in our
    country as we must adopt our own procedural laws.
    EXCEPTION:
    Philippines may adopt foreign procedural law under the Borrowing Statute such as Sec. 48 of the
    Civil Procedure Rule stating 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. Thus, Bahrain law must be
    applied. However, the court contends that Bahrains law on prescription cannot be applied because
    the court will not enforce any foreign claim that is obnoxious to the forums public policy and the 1 yr.
    rule on prescription is against public policy on labor as enshrined in the Phils. Constitution.

    The court ruled that the prescription period applicable to the case should be Art 291 of the Labor
    Code of the Phils with a 3 years prescription period since the claim arose from labor
    employment.

    You might also like