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 employeremployee 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 employeremployee 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-86-05-460). 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 farfetched 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 again