Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 651 views

    Cadalin Vs POEA Administrator

    Uploaded by

    istefifay
    The case involved a class action suit filed by Filipino workers against recruitment agencies and foreign companies for claims arising from their recruitment and employment abroad being terminated prematurely. While the defendants argued that the claims had prescribed based on a 1-year limitation period under Bahraini law, the Supreme Court held that: 1) As the Philippines has a "borrowing statute" that directs applying the foreign statute of limitations, the Bahraini law would normally govern. 2) However, enforcing the extremely short 1-year period under Bahraini law would contravene Philippine public policy on protecting labor rights. 3) Therefore, the Philippine courts will not apply the foreign law in this case due to

    Copyright:

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

    Cadalin Vs POEA Administrator

    Uploaded by

    istefifay
    651 views2 pages
    The case involved a class action suit filed by Filipino workers against recruitment agencies and foreign companies for claims arising from their recruitment and employment abroad being terminated prematurely. While the defendants argued that the claims had prescribed based on a 1-year limitation period under Bahraini law, the Supreme Court held that: 1) As the Philippines has a "borrowing statute" that directs applying the foreign statute of limitations, the Bahraini law would normally govern. 2) However, enforcing the extremely short 1-year period under Bahraini law would contravene Philippine public policy on protecting labor rights. 3) Therefore, the Philippine courts will not apply the foreign law in this case due to

    Original Description:

    conflict of laws

    Original Title

    Cadalin vs POEA Administrator

    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 case involved a class action suit filed by Filipino workers against recruitment agencies and foreign companies for claims arising from their recruitment and employment abroad being terminated prematurely. While the defendants argued that the claims had prescribed based on a 1-year limitation period under Bahraini law, the Supreme Court held that: 1) As the Philippines has a "borrowing statute" that directs applying the foreign statute of limitations, the Bahraini law would normally govern. 2) However, enforcing the extremely short 1-year period under Bahraini law would contravene Philippine public policy on protecting labor rights. 3) Therefore, the Philippine courts will not apply the foreign law in this case due to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    651 views2 pages

    Cadalin Vs POEA Administrator

    Uploaded by

    istefifay
    The case involved a class action suit filed by Filipino workers against recruitment agencies and foreign companies for claims arising from their recruitment and employment abroad being terminated prematurely. While the defendants argued that the claims had prescribed based on a 1-year limitation period under Bahraini law, the Supreme Court held that: 1) As the Philippines has a "borrowing statute" that directs applying the foreign statute of limitations, the Bahraini law would normally govern. 2) However, enforcing the extremely short 1-year period under Bahraini law would contravene Philippine public policy on protecting labor rights. 3) Therefore, the Philippine courts will not apply the foreign law in this case due to

    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 2

    Cadalin vs POEA Administrator

    Facts:

    BRII is a foreign corporation and is engaged in construction; while AIBC is a domestic


    corporation licensed as a service contractor to recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino
    workers for overseas employment on behalf of its foreign principals. Bienvenido M..
    Cadalin and 2 others, in their own behalf and on behalf of 728 other overseas contract
    workers, instituted a class suit by filing an "Amended Complaint" with the POEA for money
    claims arising from their recruitment by AIBC and employment by BRII. The amended
    complaint principally sought the payment of the unexpired portion of the employment
    contracts, which was terminated prematurely. Claimants are of the view that Article 291
    of the Labor Code of the Philippines 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 and therefore the claims
    may be brought within ten years as provided by Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the
    Philippines. AIBC and BRII, insisting that the actions on the claims have prescribed under
    the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 which provides that, "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. Thus, they 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.

    Issue:

    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

    Held:

    As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. This is true
    even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law. 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.

    However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes


    irrelevant when the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute." 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. 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 Philippine Islands.
    In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot be enforced ex propio
    vigore insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of of the Amiri Decree No.
    23 of 1976. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claims obnoxious to the
    forums public policy. 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.

    You might also like