Erectors, Inc., v.

NLRC


Facts:
In September 1979, Erectors recruited Florencio Burgos to work as Service Contract Driver in Saudi
Arabia for 12 months with a salary of $165 and an allowance of $165 per month. Burgos will also be
entitled a bonus of $1ooo if after the 12-month period, he renews/extends his contract without
availing his vacation or home leave His contract was approved by the Ministry of Labor and
Employment.
However, the contract was not implemented. In December 1979, Erectors notified Burgos that the
position of Service Driver was no longer available. On December 14, 1979, they executed another
contract changing his position from driver to laborer with a salary of $105 and an allowance of
$105 per month. This contract was not submitted to the MLE.
On December 1979, Burgos left the country and worked at Erectors Buraidah Sports Complex
project in Saudi Arabia as a laborer. He received a monthly salary and allowance of $210. Burgos
renewed his contract after one year and his salary and allowance were increased to $231.
Burgos returned to Philippines on August 1981. He then invoked his first employment contract.
He demanded the difference between his salary and allowance in teh said contract and the amount
paid to him.
On March 1982, Burgos filed wiht the Labor Arbiter a complaint for underpayment of wages and
non-payment of overtime pay and bonus.
While his case was still in conciliation stage, EO 797 creating POEA was established Sec 4(a) of E)
797 vested the POEA with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases including money claims,
involving employer-employee relationship arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract
involving Filipino workers for overseas employment."
Despite EO 797, Labor Arbiter proceeded to try the case and rendered judgement in favor of
Burgos. In view of EO 797, Erectors questioned the jurisdiction of the LA in NLRC. NLRC dismissed
the petitioner's appeal and upheld the LA's jurisdiction.

Issue:
Whether or not EO 797 applies retroactively to affect pending cases, including the complaint filed
by Burgos.

Held:
No. The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in force at the time
of the commencement of the action. On March 31, 1982, at the time private respondent filed his
complaint against the petitioner, the prevailing laws were Presidential Decree No. 1691 and
Presidential Decree No. 1391 which vested the Regional Offices of the Ministry of Labor and the
Labor Arbiters with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving employer-employee
relations including money claims arising out of any law or contracts involving Filipino workers for
overseas employment." At the time of the filing of the complaint, the Labor Arbiter had clear
jurisdiction over the same.