G.R. No.

L-104776 December 5, 1994

BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONATO B. EVANGELISTA, and

the rest of 1,767 NAMED-COMPLAINANTS, thru and by their Attorney-in-fact, Atty.
GERARDO A. DEL MUNDO, petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION'S ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL,
INC. AND/OR ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS CORPORATION, respondents.

(In summary, some hundreds of workers brought a labor case against an agent of
their employer in the Philippines. In Bahrain, the amir there provided for additional
labor benefits, but the prescriptive period is within 1 year only. In the Philippines
however, our labor laws says that the prescriptive period is 3 years whilst a civil
code provision says that actions based on written contracts prescribe only after 10
years (Art 1144 of CC). POEA and NLRC for the companies. Complainants brought
case under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Issue: on whether the Bahrain prescriptive period will work in the Philippines?

SC ruling: No.

Prescriptive period may be substantive or procedural depending upon the

characterization of the law of the forum. This would have been immaterial if we had
utilized a borrowing statute. But we arent using a borrowing statute. More so, a
jurisprudential authority in US stipulates that unless the foreign countrys
prescriptive period is expressly made to apply to foreign cases, it wouldnt be made
to apply in the foreign forum. Also, the 1 year prescriptive period by the Bahrain law
would be against public policy as there is a constitutional provision protecting the
rights of labor.)