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 aren’t
using a borrowing statute. More so, a jurisprudential authority in US stipulates that unless the foreign
country’s prescriptive period is expressly made to apply to foreign cases, it wouldn’t 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.)