G.R. No. 67035 January 29, 1993
PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE PORTS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER DANIEL M. LUCAS, JR., and PERFECTO JARDIN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine-Singapore Ports Corporation (PSPC) and private respondent Perfecto Jardin entered into a contract of employment on September 5, 1977, for Jardin to work as a winchman/signalman in Saudi Arabia for two years starting January 1978. In October 1978, due to a medical condition diagnosed as “fistula in anu,” Jardin was sent back to the Philippines at PSPC’s expense for treatment. At the GSIS Hospital in Quezon City, his ailment was diagnosed as “pruritis ani due to ancylostomiasis.” On November 4, 1978, he was certified fit to work by his attending physician. However, when he reported to PSPC on the same day, he was advised to file his resignation papers. Consequently, on January 31, 1979, Jardin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and recovery of backwages with the then Ministry of Labor, Region IV, Manila. PSPC, in its position paper, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the principal ground that under Article 15 of the Labor Code (P.D. No. 442), the Bureau of Employment Services, not the Labor Arbiter, had jurisdiction over the case as it involved the overseas employment of a Filipino worker. Labor Arbiter Daniel M. Lucas, Jr., in his decision dated January 3, 1980, did not address the issue of jurisdiction and instead resolved the case on its merits, ordering PSPC to pay Jardin $3,800.00 or its peso equivalent for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. PSPC appealed to the NLRC, reiterating its jurisdictional challenge and arguing that the Labor Arbiter gravely abused his discretion. In a Resolution dated May 29, 1981, the NLRC dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground that Jardin had not been furnished a copy of the appeal memorandum within the reglementary period. PSPC’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC en banc in a Resolution dated February 9, 1984. Hence, PSPC filed the instant petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Perfecto Jardin, which arose from his overseas employment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and nullified the proceedings below. The Court held that at the time Jardin filed his complaint on January 31, 1979, Article 15 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 1412 (effective June 9, 1978), vested the Bureau of Employment Services with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving employer-employee relations, including money claims, arising from any law or contracts involving Filipino workers for overseas employment, except seamen. Since Jardin’s claims undeniably arose from an employer-employee relationship and he worked overseas in Saudi Arabia, the Bureau of Employment Services, not the Labor Arbiter, had jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the commencement of the action. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s decision was null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction. The Court also found that the NLRC abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal on the purely technical ground of failure to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum, as such non-service is not a jurisdictional defect. The proceedings were nullified without prejudice to Jardin’s right to refile his claim with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), which had assumed the functions of the Bureau of Employment Services.