CADALIN ET AL VS.

POEA ET AL
GRN 104776, December 5, 1994

FACTS:
Cadalin et al. are Filipino workers recruited by Asia Int’l Builders Co. (AIBC), a domestic recruitment
corporation, for employment in Bahrain to work for Brown & Root Int’l 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 Bahrain’s law on prescription cannot be applied because the court will not enforce any
foreign claim that is obnoxious to the forum’s 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.