EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN MARITIME v SURIO

F: Respondents were former crewmembers of the MT Seadance. While still on board

the vessel, they suffered from inadequate work conditions [e.g. equipment] and e
xperienced delayed wages and remittenances. They were also not paid for extra wo
rk and overtime. On 19 Dec 1993, the International Transport Federation inspecte
d the vessel and learned of such conditions. Due to this, the differentials were
paid, and the respondents were repatriated.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint in the POEA for disciplinary act
ion based on breach of discipline [on what grounds?] and for the reimbursement o
f the wage increases.
While this was pending [1995], RA 8042 took effect, original and exclusive juris
diction over all money claims arising out of e-ers involving OFWSs was transferr
ed to the Labor Arbiters. Soon after [May 1996], the POEA dismissed the complain
t for disciplinary action; petitioners received the order of dismissal on July 1
996.
NLRC APPEAL via 1991 POEA Rules: No jurisdiction. File at POEA as only money cla
ims were transferred to the LA/NLRC.
SC (Rule 65), referred to CA based on St. Martin ruling: Dismissed-- file at POE
A. NLRC had no appellate jurisdiction over the matter, as it dealt with MONEY CL
AIMS.
I: Whether or not the NLRC has the jurisdiction to review on appeal cases decide
d by the POEA on matters pertaining to disciplinary actions.
H/R: NO. RA 8042 never removed the POEA's/Secretary of Labor's jurisdiction over
administrative cases, including disciplinary actions.
Args: RA 8042 did not provide for its retroactive application.
Ans: File with Secretary of Labor. He can review the POEA cases. Jurisdiction st
ill vests in them.
- RA 8042 transferred the original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims
of OFWs to the LA/NLRC. It DID NOT remove POEA's jurisdiction over disciplinary
cases. Reason: RA 8042 was meant to allow POEA to focus on administrative matter
s affecting the workers, as can be noted in the Omnibus Rules implementing RA 80
42.
- In effect, the NLRC had no appellate jurisdiction to review the POEA decision-
- it reviews Labor Arbiter cases. The recourse should have been to file the appe
al with the Secretary of Labor.
- Retroactivity: GR: All laws are prospective in application. X-1: Contrary prov
ided. X-2: Procedural rule. RA 8042 was a procedural law as it prescribes rules
and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to administer justice. I
n this case, RA 8042 adjusted the jurisdiction of various tribunals.
- An exception to the exception is if vested rights would be impaired, but the c
ase was still pending-- no vested rights at all. Also, rules of procedure vest n
o rights.
- RA 8042 did affect them upon appeal-- the change in appellate jurisdiction mer
ely changed the court with the jurisdiction over the appeal, but it did not dest
roy their right to appeal. However, an appeal that is perfected when a new statu
te affecting appellate jurisdiction comes into effect should comply with the pro
visions of the new law, unless otherwise provided by the new law.
- Why? Appeal is a statutory right.
- Who to appeal to? Secretary of Labor under RAC.