GR 226578; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226578 January 28, 2019
AUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner vs. ELFRENITO B. BARTOLOME and RUMBY L. YAMAT, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Augustin International Center, Inc. (AICI), a recruitment agency, deployed respondents Elfrenito B. Bartolome and Rumby L. Yamat to work for Golden Arrow Company, Ltd. in Sudan under 24-month employment contracts. Upon arrival, their employment was transferred to Al Mamoun Trading and Investment Company. In May 2012, Al Mamoun served Notices of Termination of Service to respondents, prompting their return to the Philippines. They subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against AICI and Al Mamoun before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
AICI and Al Mamoun contested the complaint, alleging that respondents had abandoned their work. The LA ruled in favor of the respondents, finding illegal dismissal due to the employers’ failure to prove a valid cause for termination. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling. Before the Supreme Court, AICI no longer contested the finding of illegal dismissal but instead argued that the LA had no jurisdiction. It invoked a contract clause stating that disputes must first be settled amicably with the participation of the Labor Attaché or embassy representative nearest the worksite.
ISSUE
Whether the Labor Arbiter correctly assumed jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case despite the contractual dispute settlement clause requiring prior recourse to the Philippine Embassy.
RULING
Yes, the Labor Arbiter properly exercised jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be diminished or waived by private agreement. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act), as amended, explicitly grants the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relationships involving overseas Filipino workers. The law’s mandate is clear and takes precedence over any contractual stipulation.
The contractual provision for amicable settlement with embassy participation is merely a procedural precursor that does not strip the LA of its statutory jurisdiction. It is a mechanism for voluntary dispute resolution, not a compulsory condition that ousts the authority of the quasi-judicial bodies established by law. Since the parties failed to settle amicably, the respondents correctly availed themselves of the legal remedy provided by statute by filing their complaint directly with the LA. The Court upheld the lower tribunals’ findings of illegal dismissal and the consequent joint and several liability of AICI and the foreign principal for the awarded monetary claims.