G.R. No. 104215 . May 8, 1996.
ERECTORS, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. JULIO ANDRES, JR. and FLORENCIO BURGOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Erectors, Inc. recruited private respondent Florencio Burgos for overseas work in Saudi Arabia. Their initial September 1979 contract, approved by the Ministry of Labor, designated him as a service driver. This contract was superseded by an unapproved December 1979 contract, changing his position to helper/laborer with lower compensation. Burgos worked under this second contract, renewed it after one year, and returned to the Philippines in August 1981. He then filed a complaint on March 31, 1982, before the Labor Arbiter, seeking wage differentials and a contractual bonus based on the terms of the first, approved contract.
While the case was pending conciliation, Executive Order No. 797 took effect on May 1, 1982. This law created the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and vested it with “original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving employer-employee relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment.” Despite this, the Labor Arbiter proceeded, ruled in favor of Burgos, and the NLRC upheld the Arbiter’s jurisdiction on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Labor Arbiter retained jurisdiction over the money claim filed by an overseas contract worker after the enactment of E.O. No. 797, which granted exclusive jurisdiction over such claims to the POEA.

RULING

Yes, the Labor Arbiter retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action. When Burgos filed his complaint on March 31, 1982, the prevailing laws were Presidential Decree No. 1391 and P.D. No. 1691, which vested original and exclusive jurisdiction over such overseas employment cases in the Regional Offices of the Ministry of Labor and the Labor Arbiters. Consequently, at the time of filing, the Labor Arbiter had clear jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that laws are to be applied prospectively unless a retroactive intent is expressly declared or necessarily implied. No such intent was found in the language of E.O. No. 797. Therefore, the executive order did not divest the Labor Arbiter of the authority to hear and decide a case validly commenced prior to its effectivity. The precedent cited by petitioner, Briad Agro Development Corp. vs. Dela Cerna, was deemed inapplicable as it involved an exception to the general rule. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.