G.R. No. L-104776 December 5, 1994 BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONA O B. EVANGELI!

A, "#$ %&e re'% o( 1,767 NAMED-COM)LAINAN !, %&r* "#$ b+ %&e,r A%%or#e+-,#-("c%, A%%+. GERARDO A. DEL MUNDO, petitioners, vs. )-ILI))INE OVER!EA! EM)LO.MEN ADMINI! RA ION/! ADMINI! RA OR, NA IONAL LABOR RELA ION! COMMI!!ION, BRO0N 1 ROO IN ERNA IONAL, INC. AND2OR A!IA IN ERNA IONAL BUILDER! COR)ORA ION, respondents. G.R. No'. 104911-14 December 5, 1994 BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, E AL., petitioners, vs. -ON. NA IONAL LABOR RELA ION! COMMI!!ION, BRO0N 1 ROO IN ERNA IONAL, INC. "#$2or A!IA IN ERNA IONAL BUILDER! COR)ORA ION, respondents. G.R. No'. 105039-43 December 5, 1994 A!IA IN ERNA IONAL BUILDER COR)ORA ION "#$ BRO0N 1 ROO IN ERNA IONAL, INC., petitioners, vs. NA IONAL LABOR RELA ION! COMMI!!ION, BIENVENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONA O B. EVANGELI! A, ROMEO )A AG, RI5ALINO RE.E!, IGNACIO DE VERA, !OLOMON B. RE.E!, 6O!E M. ABAN, EMIGDIO N. ABAR7UE5, AN ONIO ACU)AN, ROMEO ACU)AN, BEN6AMIN ALE6ANDRE, 0IL8REDO D. ALIGADO, MAR IN AMI! AD, 6R., ROLANDO B. AMUL, AMOR!OLO ANADING, AN ONIO . ANGLO, VICEN E ARLI A, -ERBER A.O, !ILVERIO BALA A5O, AL8REDO BALOBO, 8ALCONERO BANAAG, RAMON BARBO!A, 8ELI9 BARCENA, 8ERNANDO BA!, MARIO BA ACLAN, ROBER O !. BA ICA, ENRICO BELEN, ARI! EO BICOL, LARR. C. BICOL, )E RONILLO BI!COC-O, 8ELI9 M. BOBIER, DIONI!IO BOBONGO, BA.ANI !. BRACAMAN E, )ABLI O BU! ILLO, GUILLERMO CABE5A!, BIENVENIDO CADALIN, RODOL8O CAGA AN, AMAN E CAILAO, IRENEO CANDOR, 6O!E CA! ILLO, MANUEL CA! ILLO, REMAR CA! RO6ERE!, RE.NALDO CA.A!, ROMEO CECILIO, EODULO CREU!, BA.ANI DA.RI , RICARDO DA.RI , ERNE! O . DELA CRU5, 8RANCI!CO DE GU5MAN, ONO8RE DE RAMA, IGNACIO DE VERA, MODE! O DI5ON, RE.NALDO DI5ON, AN ONIO !. DOMINGUE5, GILBER EBRADA, RICARDO EBRADA, AN ONIO E6ERCI O, 6R., EDUAR E ERIDAO, ELADIO E!CO O O, 6O-N E!GUERRA, EDUARDO E!)IRI U, ERNE! O E!)IRI U, RODOL8O E!)IRI U, NE! OR M. E! EVA, BEN6AMIN E! RADA, VALERIO EVANGELI! A, OLIGARIO 8RANCI!CO, 6E!U! GABA0AN, ROLANDO GARCIA, ANGEL GUDA, )ACI O -ERNANDE5, AN ONIO -ILARIO, -ENR. L. 6ACOB, -ONE! O 6ARDINIANO, AN ONIO 6OC!ON, GERARDO LAC!AMANA, E8REN U. LIRIO LORE O LON OC, I!RAEL LOREN5O, ALE6ANDRO LORINO, 6O!E MABALA., -ERMIE MARANAN, LEOVIGILDO MARCIAL, NOEL MAR INE5, DAN E MA REO, LUCIANO MELENDE5, RENA O MELO, 8RANCI! MEDIODIA, 6O!E C. MILANE!, RA.MUNDO C. MILA., CRE!ENCIANO MIRANDA, ILDE8ON!O C. MOLINA, ARMANDO B. MONDE6AR RE!URRECCION D. NA5ARENO, 6UAN OLINDO, 8RANCI!CO R. OLIVARE!, )EDRO ORBI! A, 6R., RICARDO ORDONE5, ERNIE )ANC-O, 6O!E )ANC-O, GORGONIO ). )ARALA, MODE! O )IN)IN, 6UANI O )AREA, ROMEO I. )A AG, 8RANCI!CO )IN)IN, LEONARDO )OBLE E, 6AIME )OLLO!, DOMINGO )ONDALI!, EUGENIO RAMIRE5, LUCIEN M. RE!)ALL, GAUDENCIO RE ANAN, 6R., OMA! B. RE ENER, ALVIN C. RE.E!, RI5ALINO RE.E!, !OLOMON B. RE.E!, VIRGILIO G. RICA5A, RODELIO RIE A, 6R., BENI O RIVERA, 6R., BERNARDO 6. ROBILLO!, )ABLO A. ROBLE!, 6O!E ROBLE5A, 7UIRINO RON7UILLO, AVELINO M. RO7UE, MENANDRO L. !ABINO, )EDRO !ALGA AR, EDGARDO !ALONGA, NUMERIANO !AN MA EO, 8ELI5ARDO DE LO! !AN O!, 6R., GABRIEL !AN O!, 6UANI O !AN O!, )A7UI O !OLAN E, CONRADO A. !OLI!, 6R., RODOL8O !UL AN, I!AIA! ALAC AC, 0ILLIAM ARUC, MENANDRO EM)RO!A, BIENVENIDO !. OLEN INO, BENEDIC O ORRE!, MA9IMIANO ORRE!, 8RANCI!CO G. RIA!, !ERGIO A. UR!OLINO, ROGELIO VALDE5, LEGORIO E. VERGARA, DEL8IN VIC ORIA, GILBER VIC ORIA, -ERNANE VIC ORIANO, 8RANCI!CO VILLA8LORE!, DOMINGO VILLA-ERMO!A, ROLANDO VILLALOBO!, AN ONIO VILLAU5, DANILO VILLANUEVA, ROGELIO VILLANUEVA, ANGEL VILLARBA, 6UANI O

VILLARINO, 8RANCI!CO 5ARA, ROGELIO AALAGO!, NICANOR B. ABAD, ANDRE! ABANE!, RE.NALDO ABANE!, EDUARDO ABAN E, 6O!E ABARRO, 6O!E8INO ABARRO, CEL!O !. ABELANIO, -ERMINIO ABELLA, MIGUEL ABE! ANO, RODRIGO G. ABUBO, 6O!E B. ABU! AN, DAN E ACERE!, RE.NALDO !. ACO6IDO, LEO0ILIN AC A, EUGENIO C. ACUE5A, EDUARDO ACU)AN, RE.NALDO ACU)AN, !OLANO ACU)AN, MANUEL ). ADANA, 8LOREN INO R. AGNE, 7UI ERIO R. AGUDO, MANUEL ). AGUINALDO, DAN E AGUIRRE, -ERMINIO AGUIRRE, GON5ALO ALBER O, 6R., CONRADO ALCAN ARA, LAMBER O 7. ALCAN ARA, MARIANI O 6. ALCAN ARA, BENCIO ALDOVER, EULALIO V. ALE6ANDRO, BEN6AMIN ALE6ANDRO, EDUARDO L. ALE6ANDRO, MA9IMINO ALE6ANDRO, ALBER O ALMENAR, ARNALDO ALON5O, AMADO ALORIA, CAMILO ALVARE5, MANUEL C. ALVARE5, BEN6AMIN R. AMBROCIO, CARLO! AMORE!, BERNARD ). ANC-E A, IMO EO O. ANC-E A, 6EO8RE. ANI, ELINO ). AN ILLON, ARMANDRO B. AN I)ONO, LARR. . AN ONIO, AN ONIO A)ILADO, AR URO ). A)ILADO, 8RANCI!CO A)OLINARIO, BAR OLOME M. A7UINO, I!IDRO A7UINO, )A! OR A7UINO, RO!ENDO M. A7UINO, ROBER O ARANGORIN, BEN6AMIN O. ARA EA, AR URO V. ARAULLO, )RUDENCIO ARAULLO, ALE9ANDER ARCAIRA, 8RANCI!CO ARCIAGA, 6O!E AREVALO, 6UAN O AREVALO, RAMON AREVALO, RODOL8O AREVALO, EULALIO ARGUELLE!, 0IL8REDO ). ARICA, 6O!E M. ADE!ILLO, AN ONIO A!UNCION, AR EMIO M. A!UNCION, EDGARDO A!UNCION, RE9. M. A!UNCION, VICEN E AURELIO, ANGEL AU! RIA, RICARDO ). AVERILLA, 6R., VIRGILIO AVILA, BAR OLOME A9ALAN, AL8REDO BABILONIA, 8ELIMON BACAL, 6O!E L. BACANI, ROMULO R. BALBIERAN, VICEN E BALBIERAN, RODOL8O BALI BI , EODORO .. BALOBO, DANILO O. BARBA, BERNARDO BARRO, 6UAN A. BA!ILAN, CE8ERINO BA I I!, VIVENCIO C. BAUAN, GAUDENCIO !. BAU I! A, LEONARDO BAU I! A, 6O!E D. BAU I! A, RO! ICO BAU I! A, RU)ER O B. BAU I! A, EODORO !. BAU I! A, VIRGILIO BAU I! A, 6E!U! R. BA.A, 0INIE8REDO BA.ACAL, 0INIE8REDO BEBI , BEN G. BELIR, ERIC B. BEL RAN, EMELIANO BENALE!, 6R., RAUL BENI E5, )ER8EC O BEN!AN, IRENEO BERGONIO, I!ABELO BERMUDE5, ROLANDO I. BERMUDE5, DANILO BERON, BEN6AMIN BER!AMIN, ANGELI O BICOL, AN!ELMO BICOL, CELE! INO BICOL, 6R., 8RANCI!CO BICOL, ROGELIO BICOL, ROMULO L. BICOL, ROGELIO BILLIONE!, EO8ILO N. BI O, 8ERNANDO BLANCO, AUGU! O BONDOC, DOMINGO BONDOC, )E)E !. BOOC, 6AME! R. BOR6A, 0IL8REDO BRACERO!, ANGELE! C. BRECINO, EURECL.DON G. BRIONE!, AMADO BRUGE, )ABLI O BUDILLO, ARC-IMEDE! BUENAVEN URA, BA!ILIO BUENAVEN URA, GUILLERMO BUENCON!E6O, ALE9ANDER BU! AMAN E, VIRGILIO BU IONG, 6R., -ONE! O ). CABALLA, DEL8IN CABALLERO, BENEDIC O CABANIGAN, MOI!E! CABA A., -ERMANELI CABRERA, )EDRO CAGA AN, 6OVEN C. CAGA.A , ROGELIO L. CALAGO!, RE.NALDO V. CALDE6ON, O!CAR C. CALDERON, NE! OR D. CALLE6A, RENA O R. CALMA, NEL!ON . CAMAC-O, !AN O! . CAMAC-O, ROBER O CAMANA, 8LORAN E C. CAMANAG EDGARDO M. CANDA, !EVERINO CAN O!, E)I8ANIO A. CA)ON)ON, ELIA! D. CARILLO, 6R., ARMANDO CARREON, MENANDRO M. CA! A:EDA, BENIGNO A. CA! ILLO, CORNELIO L. CA! ILLO, 6O!E)- B. CA! ILLO, AN!ELMO CA! ILLO, 6OA7UIN CA! ILLO, )ABLO L. CA! ILLO, ROMEO ). CA! ILLO, !E!INANDO CA IBOG, DANILO CA! RO, )RUDENCIO A. CA! RO, RAMO CA! RO, 6R., ROMEO A. DE CA! RO, 6AIME B. CA LI, DURANA D. CE8ERINO, RODOL8O B. CELI!, -ERMINIGILDO CERE5O, VIC ORIANO CELE! INO, BEN6AMIN C-AN, AN ONIO C. C-UA, VIVENCIO B. CIABAL, RODRIGO CLARE E, AUGU! O COLOMA, URIANO CONCE)CION, ERE!I O CON! AN INO, ARMANDO CORALE!, RENA O C. CORCUERA, A)OLINAR CORONADO, ABELARDO CORONEL, 8ELI9 CORONEL, 6R., LEONARDO COR)U5, 6E!U! M. CORRALE!, CE!AR COR EM)RA O, 8RANCI!CO O. CORVERA, 8RANCI!CO CO! ALE!, !R., CELEDONIO CREDI O, ALBER O A. CREU!, ANACLE O V. CRU5, DOMINGO DELA CRU5, AMELIANO DELA CRU5, 6R., )ANC-I O CRU5, RE.NALDO B. DELA CRU5, ROBER O ). CRU5, EODORO !. CRU5, 5O!IMO DELA CRU5, DIONI!IO A. CUARE!MA, 8ELIMON CUI5ON, 8ERMIN DAGONDON, RIC-ARD DAGUIN!IN, CRI!AN O A. DA A., NICA!IO DAN INGUINOO, 6O!E DA OON, EDUARDO DAVID, ENRICO . DAVID, 8AVIO DAVID, VIC ORIANO !. DAVID, EDGARDO N. DA.ACA), 6O!ELI O . DELO!O, CELERINO DE GU5MAN, ROMULO DE GU5MAN, LIBERA O DE GU5MAN, 6O!E DE LEON, 6O!ELI O L. DE LUMBAN, NA)OLEON !. DE LUNA, RICARDO DE RAMA, GENERO!O DEL RO!ARIO, ALBER O DELA CRU5, 6O!E DELA CRU5, LEONARDO DELO! RE.E!, ERNE! O 8. DIA A, EDUARDO A. DIA5, 8ELI9 DIA5, MELC-OR DIA5, NICANOR !. DIA5, GERARDO C. DIGA, CLEMEN E DIMA ULAC, ROLANDO DIONI!IO, )-ILI)) G. DI!MA.A, BEN6AMIN DOC OLERO, ALBER O ! O. DOMINGO, BEN6AMIN E. DO5A, BEN6AMIN DU)A,

DANILO C. DURAN, GREGORIO D. DURAN, RENA O A. EDUAR E, GODO8REDO E. EI!MA, ARDON B. ELLO, UBED B. ELLO, 6O!E8INO ENANO, RE.NALDO ENCARNACION, EDGARDO ENGUANCIO, ELIA! E7UI)ANO, 8ELI5ARDO E!CARMO!A, MIGUEL E!CARMO!A, ARMANDO E!COBAR, ROMEO . E!CU.O!, ANGELI O E!)IRI U, EDUARDO !. E!)IRI U, RE.NALDO E!)IRI U, ROLANDO E!)IRI U, 6ULIAN E!)REGAN E, IGMIDIO E! ANI!LAO, ERNE! O M. E! EBAN, MELANIO R. E! RO, ERNE! O M. E! EVA, CONRADO E! UAR, CL.DE E! U.E, ELI!EO 8A6ARDO, )OR8IRIO 8AL7UE5A, 0IL8REDO ). 8AU! INO, EMILIO E. 8ERNANDE5, AR EMIO 8ERRER, MI!AEL M. 8IGURACION, ARMANDO 8. 8LORE!, BEN6AMIN 8LORE!, EDGARDO C. 8LORE!, BUENAVEN URA 8RANCI!CO, MANUEL !. 8RANCI!CO, ROLANDO 8RANCI!CO, VALERIANO 8RANCI!CO, RODOL8O GABA0AN, E!MERALDO GA-U AN, CE!AR C. GALANG, !AN IAGO N. GALO!O, GABRIEL GAMBOA, BERNARDO GANDAMON, 6UAN GAN5ON, ANDRE! GARCIA, 6R., ARMANDO M. GARCIA, EUGENIO GARCIA, MARCELO L. GARCIA, )A RICIO L. GARCIA, 6R., )ONCIANO G. GARCIA, )ONCIANO G. GARCIA, 6R., RA8AEL ). GARCIA, ROBER O !. GARCIA, O!IA! G. GARO8IL, RA.MUNDO C. GARON, ROLANDO G. GA ELA, AVELINO GA.E A, RA.MUNDO GERON, )LACIDO GON5ALE!, RU)ER O -. GON5ALE!, ROGELIO D. GUANIO, MAR IN V. GUERRERO, 6R., ALE9I! GUNO, RICARDO L. GUNO, 8RANCI!CO GU)I , DENNI! 6. GU IERRE5, IGNACIO B. GU IERRE5, ANGELI O DE GU5MAN, 6R., CE!AR -. -ABANA, RAUL G. -ERNANDE5, RE.NALDO -ERNANDE5, 6OVENIANO D. -ILADO, 6U! O -ILA)O, RO! I O -INA-ON, 8ELICI!IMO -INGADA, EDUARDO -I)OLI O, RAUL L. IGNACIO, MANUEL L. ILAGAN, RENA O L. ILAGAN, CONRADO A. IN!IONG, GRACIANO G. I!LA, ARNEL L. 6ACOB, O!CAR 6. 6A)I ENGA, CIRILO -ICBAN, MA9IMIANO -ONRADE!, GENERO!O IGNACIO, 8ELI)E ILAGAN, E9)EDI O N. 6ACOB, MARIO 6A!MIN, BIENVENIDO 6AVIER, ROMEO M. 6AVIER, )RIMO DE 6E!U!, RE.NALDO DE 6E!U!, CARLO! A. 6IMENE5, DANILO E. 6IMENE5, )EDRO C. 6OA7UIN, 8ELI)E 0. 6OC!ON, 8ELINO M. 6OC!ON, )EDRO N. 6OC!ON, VALEN INO !. 6OC!ON, )EDRO B. 6OLO.A, E! EBAN ). 6O!E, 6R., RAUL 6O!E, RICARDO !AN 6O!E, GER RUDO ;ABIG ING, EDUARDO !. ;OLIMLIM, !R., LAURO 6. LABA., EMMANUEL C. LABELLA, EDGARDO B. LACERONA, 6O!E B. LAC!ON, MARIO 6. LADINE!, RU8INO LAGAC, RODRIGO LAGANA)AN, E8REN M. LAMADRID, GUADENCIO LA ANAN, VIRGILIO LA A.AN, EMILIANO LA O6A, 0ENCE!LAO LAUREL, AL8REDO LA9AMANA, DANIEL R. LA5ARO, AN ONIO C. LEANO, AR URO !. LEGA!)I, BENI O DE LEMO!, 6R., )EDRO G. DE LEON, MANOLI O C. LILOC, GERARDO LIMUACO, ERNE! O !. LI!ING, RENA O LI!ING, 0IL8REDO !. LI!ING, CRI!)ULO LON OC, )EDRO M. LO)ERA, ROGELIO LO)ERA, CARLI O M. LO)E5, CLOD. LO)E5, GARLI O LO)E5, GEORGE 8. LO)E5, VIRGILIO M. LO)E5, BERNARDI O G. LORE6A, DOMINGO B. LORICO, DOMINGO LO.OLA, DAN E LUAGE, AN ONIO M. LUAL-A I, EMMANUEL LUAL-A I, 6R., LEONIDE5 C. LUAL-A I, !EBA! IAN LUAL-A I, 8RANCI!CO LUBA , ARMANDO LUCERO, 6O!ELI O L. DE LUMBAN, -OMA! VICEN E O. LUNA, NOLI MACALADLAD, AL8REDO MACALINO, RICARDO MACALINO, AR URO V. MACARAIG, ERNE! O V. MACARAIG, RODOL8O V. MACARAIG, BEN6AMIN MACA ANGA., -ERMOGENE! MACA ANGA., RODEL MACA ANGA., ROMULO MACA ANGA., O!IA! 7. MADLANGBA.AN, NICOLA! ). MADRID, EDELBER O G. MAGA , E8REN C. MAGBANUA, BEN6AMIN MAGBU-A , AL8REDO C. MAGCALENG, AN ONIO MAGNA.E, AL8ON!O MAG)AN A., RICARDO C. MAG)AN A., !IMEON M. MAG)AN A., ARMANDO M. MAG!INO, MACARIO !. MAG!INO, AN ONIO MAG IBA., VIC OR V. MAG IBA., GERONIMO MA-ILUM, MANUEL MALON5O, RICARDO MAMADI!, RODOL8O MANA, BERNARDO A. MANALILI, MANUEL MANALILI, ANGELO MANALO, AGUILE! L. MANALO, LEO)OLDO MANGA-A!, BA.ANI MANIGBA!, ROLANDO C. MANIM IM, DANIEL MANON!ON, ERNE! O 8. MANUEL, EDUARDO MAN5ANO, RICARDO N. MA)A, RAMON MA)ILE, ROBER O C. MARANA, NEME!IO MARA!IGAN, 0ENCE!LAO MARA!IGAN, LEONARDO MARCELO, -ENR. 8. MARIANO, 6OEL MARIDABLE, !AN O! E. MARINO, NARCI!O A. MAR7UE5, RICARDO MAR INE5, DIEGO MA!ICAM)O, AURELIO MA ABERDE, RENA O MA ILLA, VIC ORIANO MA ILLA, VIRGILIO MEDEL, LOLI O M. MELECIO, BENIGNO MELENDE5, RENER 6. MEMI6E, RE.NALDO 8. MEMI6E, RODEL MEMI6E, AVELINO MENDO5A, 6R., CLARO MENDO5A, IMO EO MENDO5A, GREGORIO MERCADO, ERNANI DELA MERCED, RICARDO MERCENA, NEME!IO ME RELLO, RODEL MEMI6E, GA!)AR MINIMO, BEN6AMIN MIRANDA, 8ELI9BER O D. MI!A, CLAUDIO A. MODE! O, 6R., O!CAR MONDEDO, GENERO!O MON ON, RENA O MORADA, RICARDO MORADA, RODOL8O MORADA, ROLANDO M. MORALE!, 8EDERICO M. MORENO, VIC ORINO A. MOR EL, 6R., E!)IRI U A. MUNO5, IGNACIO MUNO5, ILDE8ON!O MUNO5, ROGELIO MUNO5, ERNE! O

NA)ALAN, MARCELO A. NARCI5O, RE.NALDO NA ALIA, 8ERNANDO C. NAVARE E, )ACI8ICO D. NAVARRO, 8LORAN E NA5ARENO, RI5AL B. NA5ARIO, 6O!UE NEGRI E, AL8REDO NE)UMUCENO, -ERBER G. NG, 8LORENCIO NICOLA!, ERNE! O C. NINON, AVELINO NU7UI, NEME!IO D. OBA, DANILO OCAM)O, EDGARDO OCAM)O, RODRIGO E. OCAM)O, AN ONIO B. OCCIANO, RE.NALDO ). OC!ON, BEN6AMIN ODE!A, ANGEL OLA!O, 8RANCI!CO OLIGARIO, 5O!IMO OLIMBO, BEN6AMIN V. ORALLO, ROMEO !. ORIGINE!, DANILO R. OR ANE5, 0IL8REDO O!IA!, VIRGILIO )A-A, DAVID )AALAN, 6E!U! N. )AC-ECO, AL8ON!O L. )ADILLA, DANILO )AG!AN6AN, NUMERIANO )AG!I!I-AN, RICARDO . )AGUIO, EMILIO )A;INGAN, LEANDRO )ALABRICA, 7UINCIANO )ALO, 6O!E )AMA IAN, GON5ALO )AN, )OR8IRIO )AN, BIENVENIDO )ANGAN, ERNE! O )ANGAN, 8RANCI!CO V. )A!IA, EDILBER O )A!IMIO, 6R., 6O!E V. )A!ION, ANGELI O M. )ENA, DIONI!IO )ENDRA!, -ERMINIO )ERAL A, RE.NALDO M. )ERAL A, AN ONIO )ERE5, AN OLIANO E. )ERE5, 6UAN )ERE5, LEON )ERE5, ROMEO E. )ERE5, ROMULO )ERE5, 0ILLIAM )ERE5, 8ERNANDO G. )ERINO, 8LOREN INO DEL )ILAR, DELMAR 8. )INEDA, !ALVADOR )INEDA, ELI5ALDE )IN)IN, 0IL8REDO )IN)IN, AR URO )OBLE E, DOMINADOR R. )RIELA, BUENAVEN URA )RUDEN E, CARMELI O )RUDEN E, DAN E )UE.O, RE.NALDO 7. )UE.O, RODOL8O O. )ULIDO, ALE6ANDRO )UNIO, 8EDERICO 7UIMAN, AL8REDO L. 7UIN O, ROMEO 7UIN O!, EDUARDO 0. RACABO, RICARDO C. DE RAMA, RICARDO L. DE RAMA, ROLANDO DE RAMA, 8ERNANDO A. RAMIRE5, LI O !. RAMIRE5, RICARDO G. RAMIRE5, RODOL8O V. RAMIRE5, ALBER O RAMO!, AN!ELMO C. RAMO!, OBIA! RAMO!, 0ILLAR8REDO RA.MUNDO, RE.NALDO RA7UEDAN, MANUEL 8. RAVELA!, 0IL8REDO D. RA.MUNDO, ERNE! O E. RECOLA!O, ALBER O REDA5A, AR -UR RE6U!O, ORIBIO M. RELLAMA, 6AIME RELLO!A, EUGENIO A. REMO7UILLO, GERARDO REN O5A, REDEN OR C. RE., AL8REDO !. RE.E!, AMABLE !. RE.E!, BENEDIC O R. RE.E!, GREGORIO B. RE.E!, 6O!E A. RE.E!, 6O!E C. RE.E!, ROMULO M. RE.E!, !ERGIO RE.E!, ERNE! O 8. RICO, 8ERNANDO M. RICO, EMMANUEL RIE A, RICARDO RIE A, LEO B. ROBLE!, RUBEN ROBLE!, RODOL8O ROBLE5A, RODRIGO ROBLE5A, EDUARDO ROCABO, AN ONIO R. RODRIGUE5, BERNARDO RODRIGUE5, ELIGIO RODRIGUE5, ALMON E ROMEO, ELIA! RON7UILLO, ELI!E RON7UILLO, LUI! VAL B. RON7UILLO, RE.NO!O ). RON7UILLO, RODOL8O RON7UILLO, ANGEL RO!ALE!, RAMON RO!ALE!, ALBER O DEL RO!ARIO, GENERO!O DEL RO!ARIO, EODORICO DEL RO!ARIO, VIRGILIO L. RO!ARIO, CARLI O !ALVADOR, 6O!E !AM)ARADA, ERNE! O !AN )EDRO, ADRIANO V. !ANC-A, GERONIMO M. !ANC-A, AR EMIO B. !ANC-E5, NICA!IO !ANC-E5, A)OLONIO ). !AN IAGO, 6O!ELI O !. !AN IAGO, !ERGIO !AN IAGO, EDILBER O C. !AN O!, E8REN !. !AN O!, RENA O D. !AN O!, MIGUEL !A)U.O , ALE9 !. !ER7UINA, DOMINADOR ). !ERRA, ROMEO !IDRO, AMADO M. !ILANG, 8AU! INO D. !ILANG, RODOL8O B. DE !ILO!, ANICE O G. !ILVA, EDGARDO M. !ILVA, ROLANDO C. !ILVER O, AR -UR B. !IMBA-ON, DOMINGO !OLANO, 6O!ELI O C. !OLAN E, CARLI O !OLI!, CONRADO !OLI!, III, EDGARDO !OLI!, ERNE! O !OLI!, I!AGANI M. !OLI!, EDUARDO L. !O O, ERNE! O G. ! A. MARIA, VICEN E G. ! ELLA, 8ELIMON !U)ANG, )E ER ANGUINOO, MA9IMINO ALIB!AO, 8ELICI!MO ). ALU!I;, 8ERMIN ARUC, 6R., LEV. !. EM)LO, RODOL8O !. IAM!ON, LEONILO I)O!O, ARNEL OLEN INO, MARIO M. OLEN INO, 8ELI)E ORRALBA, 6OVI O V. ORRE!, LEONARDO DE ORRE!, GAVINO U. UA5ON, AUGU! O B. UNGUIA, 8RANCI!CO UMALI, !IM)LICIO UNIDA, 0IL8REDO V. UN ALAN, AN ONIO VALDERAMA, RAMON VALDERAMA, NILO VALENCIANO, EDGARDO C. VA!7UE5, EL)IDIO VELA!7UE5, NE! OR DE VERA, 0IL8REDO D. VERA, BIENVENIDO VERGARA, AL8REDO VERGARA, RAMON R. VER5O!A, 8ELICI O ). VICMUNDO, AL8REDO VIC ORIANO, EO8ILO ). VIDALLO, !ABINO N. VIERNE5, 6E!U! 6. VILLA, 6OVEN VILLABLANCO, EDGARDO G. VILLA8LORE!, CE8ERINO VILLAGERA, ALE9 VILLA-ERMO5A, DANILO A. VILLANUEVA, ELI O VILLANUEVA, LEONARDO M. VILLANUEVA, MANUEL R. VILLANUEVA, NE) -ALI VILLAR, 6O!E V. VILLAREAL, 8ELICI!IMO VILLARINO, RA8AEL VILLAROMAN, CARLO! VILLENA, 8ERDINAND VIVO, ROBER O .ABU , VICEN E .NGEN E, AND ORO C. 5UNIGA,respondents. Gerardo A. Del Mundo and Associates for petitioners. Romulo, Mabanta, Sayoc, Buenaventura, De los Angeles Law ffices for BR!!"A!B#. $lorante M. De #astro for private respondents in %&'&()*+(.

7UIA!ON, J.: ,-e petition in G.R. .o. %&/001, entitled 2Bienvenido M. #adalin, et. al. v. 3-ilippine verseas 4mployment Administration5s Administrator, et. al.,2 was filed under Rule 1' of t-e Revised Rules of #ourt6 7%8 to modify t-e Resolution dated September (, %))% of t-e .ational Labor Relations #ommission 7.LR#8 in 3 4A #ases .os. L*9/*&1*''', L*9'*%&*000, L*9'*%&*00) and L*91*&'*/1&: 7(8 to render a new decision6 7i8 declaring private respondents as in default: 7ii8 declaring t-e said labor cases as a class suit: 7iii8 ordering Asia !nternational Builders #orporation 7A!B#8 and Brown and Root !nternational !nc. 7BR!!8 to pay t-e claims of t-e %,010 claimants in said labor cases: 7iv8 declaring Atty. $lorante M. de #astro guilty of forum*s-opping: and 7v8 dismissing 3 4A #ase .o. L*91*&'*/1&: and 7+8 to reverse t-e Resolution dated Marc- (/, %))( of .LR#, denying t-e motion for reconsideration of its Resolution dated September (, %))% 7Rollo, pp. 9*(998. ,-e petition in G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, entitled 2Bienvenido M. #adalin, et. al., v. ;on. .ational Labor Relations #ommission, et. al.,2 was filed under Rule 1' of t-e Revised Rules of #ourt6 7%8 to reverse t-e Resolution dated September (, %))% of .LR# in 3 4A #ases .os. L*9/*&1*''', L*9'*%&*000, L*9'*%&*0)) and L*91*&'*/1& insofar as it6 7i8 applied t-e t-ree*year prescriptive period under t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines instead of t-e ten*year prescriptive period under t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines: and 7ii8 denied t-e 2t-ree*-our daily average2 formula in t-e computation of petitioners5 overtime pay: and 7(8 to reverse t-e Resolution dated Marc- (/, %))( of .LR#, denying t-e motion for reconsideration of its Resolution dated September (, %))% 7Rollo, pp. 9*(': (1*((&8. ,-e petition in G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, entitled 2Asia !nternational Builders #orporation, et. al., v. .ational Labor Relations #ommission, et. al.2 was filed under Rule 1' of t-e Revised Rules of #ourt6 7%8 to reverse t-e Resolution dated September (, %))% of .LR# in 3 4A #ases .os. L*9/*&1*''', L*9'*%&*000, L*9'*%&*00) and L*91*&'*/1&, insofar as it granted t-e claims of %/) claimants: and 7(8 to reverse t-e Resolution dated Marc- (%, %))( of .LR# insofar as it denied t-e motions for reconsideration of A!B# and BR!! 7Rollo, pp. (*'): 1%*(+&8. ,-e Resolution dated September (, %))% of .LR#, w-ic- modified t-e decision of 3 4A in four labor cases6 7%8 awarded monetary benefits only to %/) claimants and 7(8 directed Labor Arbiter $atima <. $ranco to conduct -earings and to receive evidence on t-e claims dismissed by t-e 3 4A for lac= of substantial evidence or proof of employment. Consolidation of Cases G.R. .os. %&/001 and %&'&()*+( were originally raffled to t-e ,-ird Division w-ile G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/ were raffled to t-e Second Division. !n t-e Resolution dated <uly (1, %))+, t-e Second Division referred G.R. .os. %&/)%%* %/ to t-e ,-ird Division 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, p. 9)'8. !n t-e Resolution dated September (), %))+, t-e ,-ird Division granted t-e motion filed in G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/ for t-e consolidation of said cases wit- G.R. .os. %&/001 and %&'&()*+(, w-ic- were assigned to t-e $irst Division 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. )91*%,%&0: G.R. .os. %&'&()*+&, Rollo, pp. +1)*+00, /(1*/+(8. !n t-e Resolution dated ctober (0, %))+, t-e $irst Division granted t-e motion to consolidate G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/ wit- G.R. .o. %&/001 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, p. %%&): G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, p. %'1(8. ! n <une 1, %)9/, Bienvenido M.. #adalin, Rolando M. Amul and Donato B. 4vangelista, in t-eir own be-alf and on be-alf of 0(9 ot-er overseas contract wor=ers 7 #>s8 instituted a class suit by filing an 2Amended #omplaint2 witt-e 3-ilippine verseas 4mployment Administration 73 4A8 for money claims arising from t-eir recruitment by A!B# and employment by BR!! 73 4A #ase .o. L*9/*&1*'''8. ,-e claimants were represented by Atty. Gerardo del

Mundo. BR!! is a foreign corporation wit- -ead?uarters in ;ouston, ,e@as, and is engaged in construction: w-ile A!B# is a domestic corporation licensed as a service contractor to recruit, mobiliAe and deploy $ilipino wor=ers for overseas employment on be-alf of its foreign principals. ,-e amended complaint principally soug-t t-e payment of t-e une@pired portion of t-e employment contracts, w-icwas terminated prematurely, and secondarily, t-e payment of t-e interest of t-e earnings of t-e ,ravel and Reserved $und, interest on all t-e unpaid benefits: area wage and salary differential pay: fringe benefits: refund of SSS and premium not remitted to t-e SSS: refund of wit--olding ta@ not remitted to t-e B!R: penalties for committing pro-ibited practices: as well as t-e suspension of t-e license of A!B# and t-e accreditation of BR!! 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %+*%/8. At t-e -earing on <une (', %)9/, A!B# was furnis-ed a copy of t-e complaint and was given, toget-er wit- BR!!, up to <uly ', %)9/ to file its answer. n <uly +, %)9/, 3 4A Administrator, upon motion of A!B# and BR!!, ordered t-e claimants to file a bill of particulars wit-in ten days from receipt of t-e order and t-e movants to file t-eir answers wit-in ten days from receipt of t-e bill of particulars. ,-e 3 4A Administrator also sc-eduled a pre*trial conference on <uly (', %)9/. n <uly %+, %)9/, t-e claimants submitted t-eir 2#ompliance and Manifestation.2 n <uly (+, %)9/, A!B# filed a 2Motion to Stri=e ut of t-e Records2, t-e 2#omplaint2 and t-e 2#ompliance and Manifestation.2 n <uly (', %)9/, t-e claimants filed t-eir 2ReBoinder and #omments,2 averring, among ot-er matters, t-e failure of A!B# and BR!! to file t-eir answers and to attend t-e pre*trial conference on <uly (', %)9/. ,-e claimants alleged t-at A!B# and BR!! -ad waived t-eir rig-t to present evidence and -ad defaulted by failing to file t-eir answers and to attend t-e pre*trial conference. n ctober (, %)9/, t-e 3 4A Administrator denied t-e 2Motion to Stri=e ut of t-e Records2 filed by A!B# but re?uired t-e claimants to correct t-e deficiencies in t-e complaint pointed out in t-e order. n ctober %&, %)9/, claimants as=ed for time wit-in w-ic- to comply wit- t-e rder of ctober (, %)9/ and filed an 2Crgent Manifestation,2 praying t-at t-e 3 4A Administrator direct t-e parties to submit simultaneously t-eir position papers, after w-ic- t-e case s-ould be deemed submitted for decision. n t-e same day, Atty. $lorante de #astro filed anot-er complaint for t-e same money claims and benefits in be-alf of several claimants, some of w-om were also claimants in 3 4A #ase .o. L*9/*&1*''' 73 4A #ase .o. 9'*%&*00)8. n ctober %), %)9/, claimants filed t-eir 2#ompliance2 wit- t-e rder dated ctober (, %)9/ and an 2Crgent Manifestation,2 praying t-at t-e 3 4A direct t-e parties to submit simultaneously t-eir position papers after w-ic- t-e case would be deemed submitted for decision. n t-e same day, A!B# as=ed for time to file its comment on t-e 2#ompliance2 and 2Crgent Manifestation2 of claimants. n .ovember 1, %)9/, it filed a second motion for e@tension of time to file t-e comment. n .ovember 9, %)9/, t-e 3 4A Administrator informed A!B# t-at its motion for e@tension of time was granted. n .ovember %/, %)9/, claimants filed an opposition to t-e motions for e@tension of time and as=ed t-at A!B# and BR!! be declared in default for failure to file t-eir answers. n .ovember (&, %)9/, A!B# and BR!! filed a 2#omment2 praying, among ot-er reliefs, t-at claimants s-ould be ordered to amend t-eir complaint. n December (0, %)9/, t-e 3 4A Administrator issued an order directing A!B# and BR!! to file t-eir answers wit-in ten days from receipt of t-e order. n $ebruary (0, %)9', A!B# and BR!! appealed to .LR# see=ing t-e reversal of t-e said order of t-e 3 4A Administrator. #laimants opposed t-e appeal, claiming t-at it was dilatory and praying t-at A!B# and BR!! be declared in default. n April (, %)9', t-e original claimants filed an 2Amended #omplaint and"or 3osition 3aper2 dated Marc- (/, %)9', adding new demands6 namely, t-e payment of overtime pay, e@tra nig-t wor= pay, annual leave differential pay, leave indemnity pay, retirement and savings benefits and t-eir s-are of forfeitures 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %/*%18. n April %', %)9', t-e 3 4A Administrator directed A!B# to file its answer to t-e amended complaint 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, p. (&8.

n May (9, %)9', claimants filed an 2Crgent Motion for Summary <udgment.2 n t-e same day, t-e 3 4A issued an order directing A!B# and BR!! to file t-eir answers to t-e 2Amended #omplaint,2 ot-erwise, t-ey would be deemed to -ave waived t-eir rig-t to present evidence and t-e case would be resolved on t-e basis of complainant5s evidence. n <une ', %)9', A!B# countered wit- a 2Motion to Dismiss as !mproper #lass Suit and Motion for Bill of 3articulars Re6 Amended #omplaint dated Marc- (/, %)9'.2 #laimants opposed t-e motions. n September /, %)9', t-e 3 4A Administrator reiterated -is directive to A!B# and BR!! to file t-eir answers in 3 4A #ase .o. L*9/*&1*'''. n September %9, %)9', A!B# filed its second appeal to t-e .LR#, toget-er wit- a petition for t-e issuance of a writ of inBunction. n September %), %)9', .LR# enBoined t-e 3 4A Administrator from -earing t-e labor cases and suspended t-e period for t-e filing of t-e answers of A!B# and BR!!. n September %), %)9', claimants as=ed t-e 3 4A Administrator to include additional claimants in t-e case and to investigate alleged wrongdoings of BR!!, A!B# and t-eir respective lawyers. n ctober %&, %)9', Romeo 3atag and two co*claimants filed a complaint 73 4A #ase .o. L*9'*%&*0008 against A!B# and BR!! wit- t-e 3 4A, demanding monetary claims similar to t-ose subBect of 3 4A #ase .o. L*9/*&1*'''. !n t-e same mont-, Solomon Reyes also filed -is own complaint 73 4A #ase .o. L*9'*%&*00)8 against A!B# and BR!!. n ctober %0, %)9', t-e law firm of $lorante M. de #astro D Associates as=ed for t-e substitution of t-e original counsel of record and t-e cancellation of t-e special powers of attorney given t-e original counsel. n December %(, %)9', Atty. Del Mundo filed in .LR# a notice of t-e claim to enforce attorney5s lien. n May (), %)91, Atty. De #astro filed a complaint for money claims 73 4A #ase .o. 91*&'*/1&8 in be-alf of %% claimants including Bienvenido #adalin, a claimant in 3 4A #ase .o. 9/*&1*'''. n December %(, %)91, t-e .LR# dismissed t-e two appeals filed on $ebruary (0, %)9' and September %9, %)9' by A!B# and BR!!. !n narrating t-e proceedings of t-e labor cases before t-e 3 4A Administrator, it is not amiss to mention t-at two cases were filed in t-e Supreme #ourt by t-e claimants, namely E G.R. .o. 0(%+( on September (1, %)9' and Administrative #ase .o. (9'9 on Marc- %9, %)91. n May %+, %)90, t-e Supreme #ourt issued a resolution in Administrative #ase .o. (9'9 directing t-e 3 4A Administrator to resolve t-e issues raised in t-e motions and oppositions filed in 3 4A #ases .os. L*9/*&1*''' and L*91*&'*/1& and to decide t-e labor cases wit- deliberate dispatc-. A!B# also filed a petition in t-e Supreme #ourt 7G.R. .o. 09/9)8, ?uestioning t-e rder dated September /, %)9' of t-e 3 4A Administrator. Said order re?uired BR!! and A!B# to answer t-e amended complaint in 3 4A #ase .o. L* 9/*&1*'''. !n a resolution dated .ovember ), %)90, we dismissed t-e petition by informing A!B# t-at all its tec-nical obBections may properly be resolved in t-e -earings before t-e 3 4A. #omplaints were also filed before t-e mbudsman. ,-e first was filed on September ((, %)99 by claimant ;ermie Arguelles and %9 co*claimants against t-e 3 4A Administrator and several .LR# #ommissioners. ,-e mbudsman merely referred t-e complaint to t-e Secretary of Labor and 4mployment wit- a re?uest for t-e early disposition of 3 4A #ase .o. L*9/*&1*'''. ,-e second was filed on April (9, %)9) by claimants 4migdio 3. Bautista and Rolando R. Lobeta c-arging A!B# and BR!! for violation of labor and social legislations. ,-e t-ird was filed by <ose R. Santos, Ma@imino .. ,alibsao and Amado B. Bruce denouncing A!B# and BR!! of violations of labor laws. n <anuary %+, %)90, A!B# filed a motion for reconsideration of t-e .LR# Resolution dated December %(, %)91. n <anuary %/, %)90, A!B# reiterated before t-e 3 4A Administrator its motion for suspension of t-e period for filing an answer or motion for e@tension of time to file t-e same until t-e resolution of its motion for reconsideration of t-e order of t-e .LR# dismissing t-e two appeals. n April (9, %)90, .LR# en banc denied t-e motion for reconsideration. At t-e -earing on <une %), %)90, A!B# submitted its answer to t-e complaint. At t-e same -earing, t-e parties were given a period of %' days from said date wit-in w-ic- to submit t-eir respective position papers. n <une (/, %)90 claimants filed t-eir 2Crgent Motion to Stri=e ut Answer,2 alleging t-at t-e answer was filed out of time. n <une (), %)90, claimants filed t-eir 2Supplement to Crgent Manifestational Motion2 to comply wit- t-e 3 4A rder of

<une %), %)90. n $ebruary (/, %)99, A!B# and BR!! submitted t-eir position paper. n Marc- /, %)99, claimants filed t-eir 2Ex-Parte Motion to 4@punge from t-e Records2 t-e position paper of A!B# and BR!!, claiming t-at it was filed out of time. n September %, %)99, t-e claimants represented by Atty. De #astro filed t-eir memorandum in 3 4A #ase .o. L* 91*&'*/1&. n September 1, %)99, A!B# and BR!! submitted t-eir Supplemental Memorandum. n September %(, %)99, BR!! filed its 2Reply to #omplainant5s Memorandum.2 n ctober (1, %)99, claimants submitted t-eir 2 ExParte Manifestational Motion and #ounter*Supplemental Motion,2 toget-er wit- //1 individual contracts of employments and service records. n ctober (0, %)99, A!B# and BR!! filed a 2#onsolidated Reply.2 n <anuary +&, %)9), t-e 3 4A Administrator rendered -is decision in 3 4A #ase .o. L*9/*&1*''' and t-e ot-er consolidated cases, w-ic- awarded t-e amount of F9(/,1'(.// in favor of only +(/ complainants. n $ebruary %&, %)9), claimants submitted t-eir 2Appeal Memorandum $or 3artial Appeal2 from t-e decision of t-e 3 4A. n t-e same day, A!B# also filed its motion for reconsideration and"or appeal in addition to t-e 2.otice of Appeal2 filed earlier on $ebruary 1, %)9) by anot-er counsel for A!B#. n $ebruary %0, %)9), claimants filed t-eir 2Answer to Appeal,2 praying for t-e dismissal of t-e appeal of A!B# and BR!!. n Marc- %', %)9), claimants filed t-eir 2Supplement to #omplainants5 Appeal Memorandum,2 toget-er wit- t-eir 2newly discovered evidence2 consisting of payroll records. n April ', %)9), A!B# and BR!! submitted to .LR# t-eir 2Manifestation,2 stating among ot-er matters t-at t-ere were only 0(9 named claimants. n April (&, %)9), t-e claimants filed t-eir 2#ounter*Manifestation,2 alleging t-at t-ere were %,010 of t-em. n <uly (0, %)9), claimants filed t-eir 2Crgent Motion for 4@ecution2 of t-e Decision dated <anuary +&, %)9) on t-e grounds t-at BR!! -ad failed to appeal on time and A!B# -ad not posted t-e supersedeas bond in t-e amount of F9(/,1'(.//. n December (+, %)9), claimants filed anot-er motion to resolve t-e labor cases. n August (%, %))&, claimants filed t-eir 2Manifestational Motion,2 praying t-at all t-e %,010 claimants be awarded t-eir monetary claims for failure of private respondents to file t-eir answers wit-in t-e reglamentary period re?uired by law. n September (, %))%, .LR# promulgated its Resolution, disposing as follows6 >;4R4$ R4, premises considered, t-e Decision of t-e 3 4A in t-ese consolidated cases is modified to t-e e@tent and in accordance wit- t-e following dispositions6 %. ,-e claims of t-e )/ complainants identified and listed in Anne@ 2A2 -ereof are dismissed for -aving prescribed: (. Respondents A!B# and Brown D Root are -ereby ordered, Bointly and severally, to pay t-e %/) complainants, identified and listed in Anne@ 2B2 -ereof, t-e peso e?uivalent, at t-e time of payment, of t-e total amount in CS dollars indicated opposite t-eir respective names: +. ,-e awards given by t-e 3 4A to t-e %) complainants classified and listed in Anne@ 2#2 -ereof, w-o appear to -ave wor=ed elsew-ere t-an in Ba-rain are -ereby set aside. /. All claims ot-er t-an t-ose indicated in Anne@ 2B2, including t-ose for overtime wor= and favorably granted by t-e 3 4A, are -ereby dismissed for lac= of substantial evidence in support t-ereof or are beyond t-e competence of t-is #ommission to pass upon. !n addition, t-is #ommission, in t-e e@ercise of its powers and aut-ority under Article (%97c8 of t-e Labor #ode, as amended by R.A. 10%', -ereby directs Labor Arbiter $atima <. $ranco of t-is #ommission to summon parties, conduct -earings and receive evidence, as e@peditiously as possible, and t-ereafter submit a written report to t-is #ommission 7$irst Division8 of t-e proceedings ta=en, regarding t-e claims of t-e following6

7a8 complainants identified and listed in Anne@ 2D2 attac-ed and made an integral part of t-is Resolution, w-ose claims were dismissed by t-e 3 4A for lac= of proof of employment in Ba-rain 7t-ese complainants numbering 19+, are listed in pages %+ to (+ of t-e decision of 3 4A, subBect of t-e appeals8 and, 7b8 complainants identified and listed in Anne@ 242 attac-ed and made an integral part of t-is Resolution, w-ose awards decreed by t-e 3 4A, to ur mind, are not supported by substantial evidence2 7G.R. .o. %&/001: Rollo, pp. %%+*%%': G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, pp. 9'*90: G.R. .os. %&'&()*+%, pp. %(&*%((8. n .ovember (0, %))%, claimant Amado S. ,olentino and %( co*claimants, w-o were former clients of Atty. Del Mundo, filed a petition for certiorari wit- t-e Supreme #ourt 7G.R. .os. %(&0/%*//8. ,-e petition was dismissed in a resolution dated <anuary (0, %))(. ,-ree motions for reconsideration of t-e September (, %))% Resolution of t-e .LR# were filed. ,-e first, by t-e claimants represented by Atty. Del Mundo: t-e second, by t-e claimants represented by Atty. De #astro: and t-e t-ird, by A!B# and BR!!. !n its Resolution dated Marc- (/, %))(, .LR# denied all t-e motions for reconsideration. ;ence, t-ese petitions filed by t-e claimants represented by Atty. Del Mundo 7G.R. .o. %&/0018, t-e claimants represented by Atty. De #astro 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/8 and by A!B# and BR!! 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(8. !! Compromise Agreements Before t-is #ourt, t-e claimants represented by Atty. De #astro and A!B# and BR!! -ave submitted, from time to time, compromise agreements for our approval and Bointly moved for t-e dismissal of t-eir respective petitions insofar as t-e claimants*parties to t-e compromise agreements were concerned 7See Anne@ A for list of claimants w-o signed ?uitclaims8. ,-us t-e following manifestations t-at t-e parties -ad arrived at a compromise agreement and t-e corresponding motions for t-e approval of t-e agreements were filed by t-e parties and approved by t-e #ourt6 %8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant 4migdio Abar?ueA and /0 co*claimants dated September (, %))( 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. (1+*/&1: G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. /0&*1%'8: (8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving petitioner Bienvenido #adalin and 9( co*petitioners dated September +, %))( 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. +1/*'&08: +8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant <ose M. Aban and +1 co*claimants dated September %0, %))( 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. 1%+*0((: G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. '%9*1(1: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. /&0*'%18: /8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Antonio ,. Anglo and %0 co*claimants dated ctober %/, %))( 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. 009*9/+: G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 1'&*0%+: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. '+&*')&8: '8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Dionisio Bobongo and 1 co*claimants dated <anuary %', %))+ 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 9%+*9+1: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. 1()*1'(8: 18 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Galerio A. 4vangelista and / co*claimants dated Marc- %&, %))+ 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. 0+%*0/1: G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %9%'* %9()8: 08 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimants 3alconeri Banaag and ' co*claimants dated Marc- %0, %))+ 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %1'0*%0&+: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. 1''*10'8: 98 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant BenBamin Ambrosio and %' ot-er co*claimants dated May /, %))+ 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. )&1*)'1: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. 10)* 0(): G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %00+*%9%/8:

)8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving Galerio 4vangelista and + co*claimants dated May %&, %))+ 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %9%'*%9()8: %&8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving petitioner Huiterio R. Agudo and +1 co*claimants dated <une %/, %))+ 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. )0/*%%)&: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. 0/9*91/: G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %&11*%%9+8: %%8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Arnaldo <. AlonAo and %) co*claimants dated <uly ((, %))+ 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %%0+*%(+': G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. %%)+*%('1: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. 9)1*)')8: %(8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Ricardo #. Dayrit and ( co*claimants dated September 0, %))+ 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. %(11*%(09: G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %(/+*%('/: G.R. .os. %&/)%%* %/,Rollo, pp. )0(*)9/8: %+8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Dante #. Aceres and +0 co*claimants dated September 9, %))+ 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %('0*%+0': G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. )90* %%&': G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, pp. %(9&*%+)08: %/8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving Givencio G. Abella and (0 co*claimants dated <anuary %&, %))/ 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, Rollo, Gol. !!8: %'8 <oint Manifestation and Motion involving Domingo B. Solano and si@ co*claimants dated August (', %))/ 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(: G.R. .o. %&/001: G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/8. !!! ,-e facts as found by t-e .LR# are as follows6 >e -ave ta=en painsta=ing efforts to sift over t-e more t-an fifty volumes now comprising t-e records of t-ese cases. $rom t-e records, it appears t-at t-e complainants*appellants allege t-at t-ey were recruited by respondent*appellant A!B# for its accredited foreign principal, Brown D Root, on various dates from %)0' to %)9+. ,-ey were all deployed at various proBects underta=en by Brown D Root in several countries in t-e Middle 4ast, suc- as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Cnited Arab 4mirates and Ba-rain, as well as in Sout-east Asia, in !ndonesia and Malaysia. ;aving been officially processed as overseas contract wor=ers by t-e 3-ilippine Government, all t-e individual complainants signed standard overseas employment contracts 7Records, Gols. ('*+(. ;ereafter, reference to t-e records would be sparingly made, considering t-eir c-aotic arrangement8 wit- A!B# before t-eir departure from t-e 3-ilippines. ,-ese overseas employment contracts invariably contained t-e following relevant terms and conditions. 3AR, B E 7%8 4mployment 3osition #lassification 6EEEEEEEEE 7#ode8 6EEEEEEEEE 7(8 #ompany 4mployment Status 6EEEEEEEEE 7+8 Date of 4mployment to #ommence on 6EEEEEEEEE 7/8 Basic >or=ing ;ours 3er >ee= 6EEEEEEEEE 7'8 Basic >or=ing ;ours 3er Mont- 6EEEEEEEEE 718 Basic ;ourly Rate 6EEEEEEEEE 708 vertime Rate 3er ;our 6EEEEEEEEE 798 3roBected 3eriod of Service 7SubBect to #7%8 of t-is IsicJ8 6EEEEEEEEE Mont-s and"or <ob #ompletion @@@ @@@ @@@ +. ; CRS $ > RK A.D # M34.SA,! . a8 ,-e 4mployee is employed at t-e -ourly rate and overtime rate as set out in 3art B of t-is

Document. b8 ,-e -ours of wor= s-all be t-ose set fort- by t-e 4mployer, and 4mployer may, at -is sole option, c-ange or adBust suc- -ours as maybe deemed necessary from time to time. /. ,4RM!.A,! . a8 .otwit-standing any ot-er terms and conditions of t-is agreement, t-e 4mployer may, at -is sole discretion, terminate employee5s service wit- cause, under t-is agreement at any time. !f t-e 4mployer terminates t-e services of t-e 4mployee under t-is Agreement because of t-e completion or termination, or suspension of t-e wor= on w-ic- t-e 4mployee5s services were being utiliAed, or because of a reduction in force due to a decrease in scope of suc- wor=, or by c-ange in t-e type of construction of suc- wor=. ,-e 4mployer will be responsible for -is return transportation to -is country of origin. .ormally on t-e most e@peditious air route, economy class accommodation. @@@ @@@ @@@ %&. GA#A,! ."S!#K L4AG4 B4.4$!,S a8 After one 7%8 year of continuous service and"or satisfactory completion of contract, employee s-all be entitled to %(*days vacation leave wit- pay. ,-is s-all be computed at t-e basic wage rate. $ractions of a year5s service will be computed on a pro-rata basis. b8 Sic= leave of %'*days s-all be granted to t-e employee for every year of service for non*wor= connected inBuries or illness. !f t-e employee failed to avail of suc- leave benefits, t-e same s-all be forfeited at t-e end of t-e year in w-ic- said sic= leave is granted. %%. B .CS A bonus of (&L 7for offs-ore wor=8 of gross income will be accrued and payable only upon satisfactory completion of t-is contract. %(. $$DAM 3AM ,-e sevent- day of t-e wee= s-all be observed as a day of rest wit- 9 -ours regular pay. !f wor= is performed on t-is day, all -ours wor= s-all be paid at t-e premium rate. ;owever, t-is offday pay provision is applicable only w-en t-e laws of t-e ;ost #ountry re?uire payments for rest day. !n t-e State of Ba-rain, w-ere some of t-e individual complainants were deployed, ;is MaBesty !sa Bin Salman Al Kaifa, Amir of Ba-rain, issued -is Amiri Decree .o. (+ on <une %1, %)01, ot-erwise =nown as t-e Labour Law for t-e 3rivate Sector 7Records, Gol. %98. ,-is decree too= effect on August %1, %)01. Some of t-e provisions of Amiri Decree .o. (+ t-at are relevant to t-e claims of t-e complainants*appellants are as follows 7italics supplied only for emp-asis86 Art. 0)6 . . . A worker shall receive payment for each extra hour equivalent to his wage entitlement increased by a minimum of twenty*five per centum t-ereof for -ours wor=ed during t-e day: and by a minimum of fifty per centum thereof for hours worked during the night w-ic- s-all be deemed to being from seven o5cloc= in t-e evening until seven o5cloc= in t-e morning. . . . Art. 9&6 $riday s-all be deemed to be a wee=ly day of rest on full pay. . . . an employer may require a worker wit- -is consent to work on his weekly day of rest if circumstances so re?uire and in respect of which an additional sum equivalent to !"#$ of his normal wage shall be paid to him. . . . Art. 9%6 . . . %hen conditions of work require the worker to work on any official holiday he shall be paid an additional sum equivalent to !"#$ of his normal wage . Art. 9/6 Every worker who has completed one year&s continuous service with his employer shall be entitled to leave on full pay for a period of not less than '! days for each year increased to a period not less than '( days after five continuous years of service. A wor=er s-all be entitled to suc- leave upon a quantum meruit in respect of t-e

proportion of -is service in t-at year. Art. %&06 A contract of employment made for a period of indefinite duration may be terminated by eit-er party t-ereto after giving t-e ot-er party t-irty days5 prior notice before suc- termination, in writing, in respect of mont-ly paid wor=ers and fifteen days5 notice in respect of ot-er wor=ers. )he party terminating a contract without giving the required notice shall pay to the other party compensation equivalent to the amount of wages payable to the worker for the period of such notice or the unexpired portion thereof* Art. %%%6 . . . t-e employer concerned s-all pay to suc- wor=er, upon termination of employment, a leaving indemnity for the period of his employment calculated on the basis of fifteen days& wages for each year of the first three years of service and of one month&s wages for each year of service thereafter . Suc- wor=er s-all be entitled to payment of leaving indemnity upon a quantum meruit in proportion to t-e period of -is service completed wit-in a year. All t-e individual complainants*appellants -ave already been repatriated to t-e 3-ilippines at t-e time of t-e filing of t-ese cases 7R.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. ')* 1'8. !G ,-e issues raised before and resolved by t-e .LR# were6 +irst6 E >-et-er or not complainants are entitled to t-e benefits provided by Amiri Decree .o. (+ of Ba-rain: 7a8 >-et-er or not t-e complainants w-o -ave wor=ed in Ba-rain are entitled to t-e above*mentioned benefits. 7b8 >-et-er or not Art. // of t-e same Decree 7allegedly prescribing a more favorable treatment of alien employees8 bars complainants from enBoying its benefits. ,econd6 E Assuming t-at Amiri Decree .o. (+ of Ba-rain is applicable in t-ese cases, w-et-er or not complainants5 claim for t-e benefits provided t-erein -ave prescribed. )hird6 E >-et-er or not t-e instant cases ?ualify as a class suit. +ourth6 E >-et-er or not t-e proceedings conducted by t-e 3 4A, as well as t-e decision t-at is t-e subBect of t-ese appeals, conformed wit- t-e re?uirements of due process: 7a8 >-et-er or not t-e respondent*appellant was denied its rig-t to due process: 7b8 >-et-er or not t-e admission of evidence by t-e 3 4A after t-ese cases were submitted for decision was valid: 7c8 >-et-er or not t-e 3 4A ac?uired Burisdiction over Brown D Root !nternational, !nc.: 7d8 >-et-er or not t-e Budgment awards are supported by substantial evidence: 7e8 >-et-er or not t-e awards based on t-e averages and formula presented by t-e complainants*appellants are supported by substantial evidence: 7f8 >-et-er or not t-e 3 4A awarded sums beyond w-at t-e complainants* appellants prayed for: and, if so, w-et-er or not t-ese awards are valid. +ifth6 E >-et-er or not t-e 3 4A erred in -olding respondents A!B# and Brown D Root Bointly are severally liable for t-e Budgment awards despite t-e alleged finding t-at t-e former was t-e employer of t-e complainants: 7a8 >-et-er or not t-e 3 4A -as ac?uired Burisdiction over Brown D Root: 7b8 >-et-er or not t-e undisputed fact t-at A!B# was a licensed construction

contractor precludes a finding t-at Brown D Root is liable for complainants claims. ,ixth6 E >-et-er or not t-e 3 4A Administrator5s failure to -old respondents in default constitutes a reversible error. ,eventh6 E >-et-er or not t-e 3 4A Administrator erred in dismissing t-e following claims6 a. Cne@pired portion of contract: b. !nterest earnings of ,ravel and Reserve $und: c. Retirement and Savings 3lan benefits: d. >ar None bonus or premium pay of at least %&&L of basic pay: e. Area Differential 3ay: f. Accrued interests on all t-e unpaid benefits: g. Salary differential pay: -. >age differential pay: i. Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to SSS: B. Refund of wit--olding ta@ not remitted to B!R: =. $ringe benefits under B D R5s 2A Summary of 4mployee Benefits2 7Anne@ 2H2 of Amended #omplaint8: l. Moral and e@emplary damages: m. Attorney5s fees of at least ten percent of t-e Budgment award: n. t-er reliefs, li=e suspending and"or cancelling t-e license to recruit of A!B# and t-e accreditation of B D R issued by 3 4A: o. 3enalty for violations of Article +/ 7pro-ibited practices8, not e@cluding reportorial re?uirements t-ereof. Eighth6 E >-et-er or not t-e 3 4A Administrator erred in not dismissing 3 4A #ase .o. 7L8 91* 1'*/1& on t-e ground of multiplicity of suits 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. ('*(), '%*''8. Anent t-e first issue, .LR# set aside Section %, Rule %() of t-e %)9) Revised Rules on 4vidence governing t-e pleading and proof of a foreign law and admitted in evidence a simple copy of t-e Ba-rain5s Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 7Labour Law for t-e 3rivate Sector8. .LR# invo=ed Article ((% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, vesting on t-e #ommission ample discretion to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain t-e facts in eac- case wit-out regard to t-e tec-nicalities of law or procedure. .LR# agreed wit- t-e 3 4A Administrator t-at t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+, being more favorable and beneficial to t-e wor=ers, s-ould form part of t-e overseas employment contract of t-e complainants. .LR#, -owever, -eld t-at t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ applied only to t-e claimants, w-o wor=ed in Ba-rain, and set aside awards of t-e 3 4A Administrator in favor of t-e claimants, w-o wor=ed elsew-ere. n t-e second issue, .LR# ruled t-at t-e prescriptive period for t-e filing of t-e claims of t-e complainants was t-ree years, as provided in Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, and not ten years as provided in Article %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines nor one year as provided in t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01. n t-e t-ird issue, .LR# agreed wit- t-e 3 4A Administrator t-at t-e labor cases cannot be treated as a class suit for t-e simple reason t-at not all t-e complainants wor=ed in Ba-rain and t-erefore, t-e subBect matter of t-e action, t-e claims arising from t-e Ba-rain law, is not of common or general interest to all t-e complainants. n t-e fourt- issue, .LR# found at least t-ree infractions of t-e cardinal rules of administrative due process6 namely, 7%8 t-e failure of t-e 3 4A Administrator to consider t-e evidence presented by A!B# and BR!!: 7(8 some findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence: and 7+8 some of t-e evidence upon w-ic- t-e decision was based were not disclosed to A!B# and BR!! during t-e -earing. n t-e fift- issue, .LR# sustained t-e ruling of t-e 3 4A Administrator t-at BR!! and A!B# are solidarily liable for

t-e claims of t-e complainants and -eld t-at BR!! was t-e actual employer of t-e complainants, or at t-e very least, t-e indirect employer, wit- A!B# as t-e labor contractor. .LR# also -eld t-at Burisdiction over BR!! was ac?uired by t-e 3 4A Administrator t-roug- t-e summons served on A!B#, its local agent. n t-e si@t- issue, .LR# -eld t-at t-e 3 4A Administrator was correct in denying t-e Motion to Declare A!B# in default. n t-e sevent- issue, w-ic- involved ot-er money claims not based on t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+, .LR# ruled6 7%8 t-at t-e 3 4A Administrator -as no Burisdiction over t-e claims for refund of t-e SSS premiums and refund of wit--olding ta@es and t-e claimants s-ould file t-eir claims for said refund wit- t-e appropriate government agencies: 7(8 t-e claimants failed to establis- t-at t-ey are entitled to t-e claims w-ic- are not based on t-e overseas employment contracts nor t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01: 7+8 t-at t-e 3 4A Administrator -as no Burisdiction over claims for moral and e@emplary damages and nonet-eless, t-e basis for granting said damages was not establis-ed: 7/8 t-at t-e claims for salaries corresponding to t-e une@pired portion of t-eir contract may be allowed if filed wit-in t-e t-ree*year prescriptive period: 7'8 t-at t-e allegation t-at complainants were prematurely repatriated prior to t-e e@piration of t-eir overseas contract was not establis-ed: and 718 t-at t-e 3 4A Administrator -as no Burisdiction over t-e complaint for t-e suspension or cancellation of t-e A!B#5s recruitment license and t-e cancellation of t-e accreditation of BR!!. .LR# passed sub silencio t-e last issue, t-e claim t-at 3 4A #ase .o. 7L8 91*1'*/1& s-ould -ave been dismissed on t-e ground t-at t-e claimants in said case were also claimants in 3 4A #ase .o. 7L8 9/*&1*'''. !nstead of dismissing 3 4A #ase .o. 7L8 91*1'*/1&, t-e 3 4A Bust resolved t-e corresponding claims in 3 4A #ase .o. 7L8 9/*&1*'''. !n ot-er words, t-e 3 4A did not pass upon t-e same claims twice. G -*R* .o* !#/001 #laimants in G.R. .o. %&/001 based t-eir petition for certiorari on t-e following grounds6 7%8 t-at t-ey were deprived by .LR# and t-e 3 4A of t-eir rig-t to a speedy disposition of t-eir cases as guaranteed by Section %1, Article !!! of t-e %)90 #onstitution. ,-e 3 4A Administrator allowed private respondents to file t-eir answers in two years 7on <une %), %)908 after t-e filing of t-e original complaint 7on April (, %)9'8 and .LR#, in total disregard of its own rules, affirmed t-e action of t-e 3 4A Administrator: 7(8 t-at .LR# and t-e 3 4A Administrator s-ould -ave declared A!B# and BR!! in default and s-ould -ave rendered summary Budgment on t-e basis of t-e pleadings and evidence submitted by claimants: 7+8 t-e .LR# and 3 4A Administrator erred in not -olding t-at t-e labor cases filed by A!B# and BR!! cannot be considered a class suit: 7/8 t-at t-e prescriptive period for t-e filing of t-e claims is ten years: and 7'8 t-at .LR# and t-e 3 4A Administrator s-ould -ave dismissed 3 4A #ase .o. L*91*&'*/1&, t-e case filed by Atty. $lorante de #astro 7Rollo, pp. +%*/&8. A!B# and BR!!, commenting on t-e petition in G.R. .o. %&/001, argued6 7%8 t-at t-ey were not responsible for t-e delay in t-e disposition of t-e labor cases, considering t-e great difficulty of getting all t-e records of t-e more t-an %,'&& claimants, t-e piece*meal filing of t-e complaints and t-e addition of -undreds of new claimants by petitioners: 7(8 t-at considering t-e number of complaints and claimants, it was impossible to prepare t-e

answers wit-in t-e ten*day period provided in t-e .LR# Rules, t-at w-en t-e motion to declare A!B# in default was filed on <uly %), %)90, said party -ad already filed its answer, and t-at considering t-e staggering amount of t-e claims 7more t-an CSF'&,&&&,&&&.&&8 and t-e complicated issues raised by t-e parties, t-e ten*day rule to answer was not fair and reasonable: 7+8 t-at t-e claimants failed to refute .LR#5s finding t-at t-ere was no common or general interest in t-e subBect matter of t-e controversy E w-ic- was t-e applicability of t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+. Li=ewise, t-e nature of t-e claims varied, some being based on salaries pertaining to t-e une@pired portion of t-e contracts w-ile ot-ers being for pure money claims. 4ac- claimant demanded separate claims peculiar only to -imself and depending upon t-e particular circumstances obtaining in -is case: 7/8 t-at t-e prescriptive period for filing t-e claims is t-at prescribed by Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines 7t-ree years8 and not t-e one prescribed by Article %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines 7ten years8: and 7'8 t-at t-ey are not concerned wit- t-e issue of w-et-er 3 4A #ase .o. L*91*&'*/1& s-ould be dismissed, t-is being a private ?uarrel between t-e two labor lawyers 7Rollo, pp. ()(*+&'8. Attorney&s 2ien n .ovember %(, %))(, Atty. Gerardo A. del Mundo moved to stri=e out t-e Boint manifestations and motions of A!B# and BR!! dated September ( and %%, %))(, claiming t-at all t-e claimants w-o entered into t-e compromise agreements subBect of said manifestations and motions were -is clients and t-at Atty. $lorante M. de #astro -ad no rig-t to represent t-em in said agreements. ;e also claimed t-at t-e claimants were paid less t-an t-e award given t-em by .LR#: t-at Atty. De #astro collected additional attorney5s fees on top of t-e ('L w-ic- -e was entitled to receive: and t-at t-e consent of t-e claimants to t-e compromise agreements and ?uitclaims were procured by fraud 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 9+9*9%&8. !n t-e Resolution dated .ovember (+, %))(, t-e #ourt denied t-e motion to stri=e out t-e <oint Manifestations and Motions dated September ( and %%, %))( 7G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, Rollo, pp. 1&9*1&)8. n December %/, %))(, Atty. Del Mundo filed a 2.otice and #laim to 4nforce Attorney5s Lien,2 alleging t-at t-e claimants w-o entered into compromise agreements wit- A!B# and BR!! wit- t-e assistance of Atty. De #astro, -ad all signed a retainer agreement wit- -is law firm 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 1(+*1(/: 9+9*%'+'8. Contempt of Court n $ebruary %9, %))+, an omnibus motion was filed by Atty. Del Mundo to cite Atty. De #astro and Atty. KatA ,ierra for contempt of court and for violation of #anons %, %' and %1 of t-e #ode of 3rofessional Responsibility. ,-e said lawyers allegedly misled t-is #ourt, by ma=ing it appear t-at t-e claimants w-o entered into t-e compromise agreements were represented by Atty. De #astro, w-en in fact t-ey were represented by Atty. Del Mundo 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. %'1&*%1%/8. n September (+, %))/, Atty. Del Mundo reiterated -is c-arges against Atty. De #astro for unet-ical practices and moved for t-e voiding of t-e ?uitclaims submitted by some of t-e claimants. -*R* .os* !#/3!!-!/ ,-e claimants in G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/ based t-eir petition for certiorari on t-e grounds t-at .LR# gravely abused its discretion w-en it6 7%8 applied t-e t-ree*year prescriptive period under t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines: and 7(8 it denied t-e claimant5s formula based on an average overtime pay of t-ree -ours a day 7 Rollo, pp. %9*((8. ,-e claimants argue t-at said met-od was proposed by BR!! itself during t-e negotiation for an amicable settlement of t-eir money claims in Ba-rain as s-own in t-e Memorandum dated April %1, %)9+ of t-e Ministry of Labor of Ba-rain 7Rollo, pp. (%*((8. BR!! and A!B#, in t-eir #omment, reiterated t-eir contention in G.R. .o. %&/001 t-at t-e prescriptive period in t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, a special law, prevails over t-at provided in t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, a general law. As to t-e memorandum of t-e Ministry of Labor of Ba-rain on t-e met-od of computing t-e overtime pay, BR!! and A!B# claimed t-at t-ey were not bound by w-at appeared t-erein, because suc- memorandum was proposed by a subordinate Ba-rain official and t-ere was no s-owing t-at it was approved by t-e Ba-rain Minister of Labor.

Li=ewise, t-ey claimed t-at t-e averaging met-od was discussed in t-e course of t-e negotiation for t-e amicable settlement of t-e dispute and any offer made by a party t-erein could not be used as an admission by -im 7 Rollo, pp. ((9*(+18. -*R* .os* !#"#'3-4' !n G.R. .os. %&'&()*+(, BR!! and A!B# claim t-at .LR# gravely abused its discretion w-en it6 7%8 enforced t-e provisions of t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 and not t-e terms of t-e employment contracts: 7(8 granted claims for -oliday, overtime and leave indemnity pay and ot-er benefits, on evidence admitted in contravention of petitioner5s constitutional rig-t to due process: and 7+8 ordered t-e 3 4A Administrator to -old new -earings for t-e 19+ claimants w-ose claims -ad been dismissed for lac= of proof by t-e 3 4A Administrator or .LR# itself. Lastly, t-ey allege t-at assuming t-at t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 was applicable, .LR# erred w-en it did not apply t-e one* year prescription provided in said law 7Rollo, pp. ()*+&8. G! -*R* .o* !#/0015 -*R* .os* !#/3!!-!/5 -*R* .os* !#"#'3-4' All t-e petitions raise t-e common issue of prescription alt-oug- t-ey disagreed as to t-e time t-at s-ould be embraced wit-in t-e prescriptive period. ,o t-e 3 4A Administrator, t-e prescriptive period was ten years, applying Article %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines. .LR# believed ot-erwise, fi@ing t-e prescriptive period at t-ree years as provided in Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines. ,-e claimants in G.R. .o. %&/001 and G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, invo=ing different grounds, insisted t-at .LR# erred in ruling t-at t-e prescriptive period applicable to t-e claims was t-ree years, instead of ten years, as found by t-e 3 4A Administrator. ,-e Solicitor General e@pressed -is personal view t-at t-e prescriptive period was one year as prescribed by t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 but -e deferred to t-e ruling of .LR# t-at Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines was t-e operative law. ,-e 3 4A Administrator -eld t-e view t-at6 ,-ese money claims 7under Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode8 refer to t-ose arising from t-e employer5s violation of t-e employee5s rig-t as provided by t-e Labor #ode. !n t-e instant case, w-at t-e respondents violated are not t-e rig-ts of t-e wor=ers as provided by t-e Labor #ode, but t-e provisions of t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ issued in Ba-rain, w-ic- ipso factoamended t-e wor=er5s contracts of employment. Respondents consciously failed to conform to t-ese provisions w-ic- specifically provide for t-e increase of t-e wor=er5s rate. !t was only after <une +&, %)9+, four mont-s after t-e brown builders broug-t a suit against B D R in Ba-rain for t-is same claim, w-en respondent A!B#5s contracts -ave undergone amendments in Ba-rain for t-e new -ires"renewals 7Respondent5s 4@-ibit 08. ;ence, premises considered, t-e applicable law of prescription to t-is instant case is Article %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- provides6 Art. %%//. ,-e following actions may be broug-t wit-in ten years from t-e time t-e cause of action accrues6 7%8 Cpon a written contract: 7(8 Cpon an obligation created by law: ,-us, -erein money claims of t-e complainants against t-e respondents s-all prescribe in ten years from August %1, %)01. !nasmuc- as all claims were filed wit-in t-e ten*year prescriptive period, no claim suffered t-e infirmity of being prescribed 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, 9)*)&8. !n overruling t-e 3 4A Administrator, and -olding t-at t-e prescriptive period is t-ree years as provided in Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, t-e .LR# argued as follows6 ,-e Labor #ode provides t-at 2all money claims arising from employer*employee relations . . . s-all be filed wit-in t-ree years from t-e time t-e cause of action accrued: ot-erwise t-ey s-all be forever

barred2 7Art. ()%, Labor #ode, as amended8. ,-is t-ree*year prescriptive period s-all be t-e one applied -ere and w-ic- s-ould be rec=oned from t-e date of repatriation of eac- individual complainant, considering t-e fact t-at t-e case is -aving 7sic8 filed in t-is country. >e do not agree wit- t-e 3 4A Administrator t-at t-is t-ree*year prescriptive period applies only to money claims specifically recoverable under t-e 3-ilippine Labor #ode. Article ()% gives no suc- indication. Li=ewise, >e can not consider complainants5 cause"s of action to -ave accrued from a violation of t-eir employment contracts. ,-ere was no violation: t-e claims arise from t-e benefits of t-e law of t-e country w-ere t-ey wor=ed. 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. )&*)%8. Anent t-e applicability of t-e one*year prescriptive period as provided by t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01, .LR# opined t-at t-e applicability of said law was one of c-aracteriAation, i.e., w-et-er to c-aracteriAe t-e foreign law on prescription or statute of limitation as 2substantive2 or 2procedural.2 .LR# cited t-e decision in 6ournias v* Atlantic 7aritime Company 7((& $. (d. %'(, (d #ir. I%)''J, w-ere t-e issue was t-e applicability of t-e 3anama Labor #ode in a case filed in t-e State of .ew Mor= for claims arising from said #ode. !n said case, t-e claims would -ave prescribed under t-e 3anamanian Law but not under t-e Statute of Limitations of .ew Mor=. ,-e C.S. #ircuit #ourt of Appeals -eld t-at t-e 3anamanian Law was procedural as it was not 2specifically intended to be substantive,2 -ence, t-e prescriptive period provided in t-e law of t-e forum s-ould apply. ,-e #ourt observed6 . . . And w-ere, as -ere, we are dealing wit- a statute of limitations of a foreign country, and it is not clear on t-e face of t-e statute t-at its purpose was to limit t-e enforceability, outside as well as wit-in t-e foreign country concerned, of t-e substantive rig-ts to w-ic- t-e statute pertains, we t-in= t-at as a yardstic= for determining w-et-er t-at was t-e purpose t-is test is t-e most satisfactory one. !t does not lead American courts into t-e necessity of e@amining into t-e unfamiliar peculiarities and refinements of different foreign legal systems. . . ,-e court furt-er noted6 @@@ @@@ @@@ Applying t-at test -ere it appears to us t-at t-e libelant is entitled to succeed, for t-e respondents -ave failed to satisfy us t-at t-e 3anamanian period of limitation in ?uestion was specifically aimed against t-e particular rig-ts w-ic- t-e libelant see=s to enforce. ,-e 3anama Labor #ode is a statute -aving broad obBectives, viA6 2,-e present #ode regulates t-e relations between capital and labor, placing t-em on a basis of social Bustice, so t-at, wit-out inBuring any of t-e parties, t-ere may be guaranteed for labor t-e necessary conditions for a normal life and to capital an e?uitable return to its investment.2 !n pursuance of t-ese obBectives t-e #ode gives laborers various rig-ts against t-eir employers. Article 1(+ establis-es t-e period of limitation for all suc- rig-ts, e@cept certain ones w-ic- are enumerated in Article 1(%. And t-ere is not-ing in t-e record to indicate t-at t-e 3anamanian legislature gave special consideration to t-e impact of Article 1(+ upon t-e particular rig-ts soug-t to be enforced -ere, as distinguis-ed from t-e ot-er rig-ts to w-ic- t-at Article is also applicable. >ere we confronted wit- t-e ?uestion of w-et-er t-e limitation period of Article 1(% 7w-ic- carves out particular rig-ts to be governed by a s-orter limitation period8 is to be regarded as 2substantive2 or 2procedural2 under t-e rule of 2specifity2 we mig-t -ave a different case: but -ere on t-e surface of t-ings we appear to be dealing wit- a 2broad,2 and not a 2specific,2 statute of limitations 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. )(*)/8. #laimants in G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/ are of t-e view t-at Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- was applied by .LR#, refers only to claims 2arising from t-e employer5s violation of t-e employee5s rig-t as provided by t-e Labor #ode.2 ,-ey assert t-at t-eir claims are based on t-e violation of t-eir employment contracts, as amended by t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 and t-erefore t-e claims may be broug-t wit-in ten years as provided by Article %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines 7Rollo, G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/, pp. %9*(%8. ,o bolster t-eir contention, t-ey cite PA2EA v* Philippine Airlines 8nc., 0& S#RA (// 7%)018. A!B# and BR!!, insisting t-at t-e actions on t-e claims -ave prescribed under t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01, argue t-at t-ere is in force in t-e 3-ilippines a 2borrowing law,2 w-ic- is Section /9 of t-e #ode of #ivil 3rocedure and t-at w-ere suc- =ind of law e@ists, it ta=es precedence over t-e common*law conflicts rule 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. /'*/18.

$irst to be determined is w-et-er it is t-e Ba-rain law on prescription of action based on t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 or a 3-ilippine law on prescription t-at s-all be t-e governing law. Article %'1 of t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 provides6 A claim arising out of a contract of employment s-all not be actionable after t-e lapse of one year from t-e date of t-e e@piry of t-e contract. 7G.R. .os. %&'&()*+%, Rollo, p. ((18. As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in t-e forum. 3rocedural matters, suc- as service of process, Boinder of actions, period and re?uisites for appeal, and so fort-, are governed by t-e laws of t-e forum. ,-is is true even if t-e action is based upon a foreign substantive law 7Restatement of t-e #onflict of Laws, Sec. 19': Salonga, 3rivate !nternational Law, %+% I%)0)J8. A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in #onflict of Laws in t-e sense t-at it may be viewed eit-er as procedural or substantive, depending on t-e c-aracteriAation given suc- a law. ,-us in 6ournias v* Atlantic 7aritime Company supra t-e American court applied t-e statute of limitations of .ew Mor=, instead of t-e 3anamanian law, after finding t-at t-ere was no s-owing t-at t-e 3anamanian law on prescription was intended to be substantive. Being considered merely a procedural law even in 3anama, it -as to give way to t-e law of t-e forum on prescription of actions. ;owever, t-e c-aracteriAation of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant w-en t-e country of t-e forum -as a 2borrowing statute.2 Said statute -as t-e practical effect of treating t-e foreign statute of limitation as one of substance 7Goodric-, #onflict of Laws %'(*%'+ I%)+9J8. A 2borrowing statute2 directs t-e state of t-e forum to apply t-e foreign statute of limitations to t-e pending claims based on a foreign law 7Siegel, #onflicts, %9+ I%)0'J8. >-ile t-ere are several =inds of 2borrowing statutes,2 one form provides t-at an action barred by t-e laws of t-e place w-ere it accrued, will not be enforced in t-e forum even t-oug- t-e local statute -as not run against it 7Goodric- and Scoles, #onflict of Laws, %'(*%'+ I%)+9J8. Section /9 of our #ode of #ivil 3rocedure is of t-is =ind. Said Section provides6 !f by t-e laws of t-e state or country w-ere t-e cause of action arose, t-e action is barred, it is also barred in t-e 3-ilippines !slands. Section /9 -as not been repealed or amended by t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines. Article ((0& of said #ode repealed only t-ose provisions of t-e #ode of #ivil 3rocedures as to w-ic- were inconsistent wit- it. ,-ere is no provision in t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- is inconsistent wit- or contradictory to Section /9 of t-e #ode of #ivil 3rocedure 73aras, 3-ilippine #onflict of Laws %&/ I0t- ed.J8. !n t-e lig-t of t-e %)90 #onstitution, -owever, Section /9 cannot be enforced ex proprio vigore insofar as it ordains t-e application in t-is Burisdiction of Section %'1 of t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01. ,-e courts of t-e forum will not enforce any foreign claim obno@ious to t-e forum5s public policy 7#anadian .ort-ern Railway #o. v. 4ggen, ('( C.S. ''+, /& S. #t. /&(, 1/ L. ed. 0%+ I%)(&J8. ,o enforce t-e one*year prescriptive period of t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 as regards t-e claims in ?uestion would contravene t-e public policy on t-e protection to labor. !n t-e Declaration of 3rinciples and State 3olicies, t-e %)90 #onstitution emp-asiAed t-at6 ,-e state s-all promote social Bustice in all p-ases of national development. 7Sec. %&8. ,-e state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. !t s-all protect t-e rig-ts of wor=ers and promote t-eir welfare 7Sec. %98. !n article O!!! on Social <ustice and ;uman Rig-ts, t-e %)90 #onstitution provides6 Sec. +. ,-e State s-all afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organiAed and unorganiAed, and promote full employment and e?uality of employment opportunities for all. ;aving determined t-at t-e applicable law on prescription is t-e 3-ilippine law, t-e ne@t ?uestion is w-et-er t-e prescriptive period governing t-e filing of t-e claims is t-ree years, as provided by t-e Labor #ode or ten years, as provided by t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines. ,-e claimants are of t-e view t-at t-e applicable provision is Article %%// of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-icprovides6

,-e following actions must be broug-t wit-in ten years from t-e time t-e rig-t of action accrues6 7%8 Cpon a written contract: 7(8 Cpon an obligation created by law: 7+8 Cpon a Budgment. .LR#, on t-e ot-er -and, believes t-at t-e applicable provision is Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- in pertinent part provides6 Money claims*all money claims arising from employer*employee relations accruing during t-e effectivity of t-is #ode s-all be filed wit-in t-ree 7+8 years from t-e time t-e cause of action accrued, ot-erwise t-ey s-all be forever barred. @@@ @@@ @@@ ,-e case of Philippine Air 2ines Employees Association v* Philippine Air 2ines 8nc* , 0& S#RA (// 7%)018 invo=ed by t-e claimants in G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/ is inapplicable to t-e cases at benc- 7 Rollo, p. (%8. ,-e said case involved t-e correct computation of overtime pay as provided in t-e collective bargaining agreements and not t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law. As noted by t-e #ourt6 2,-at is precisely w-y petitioners did not ma=e any reference as to t-e computation for overtime wor= under t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law 7Secs. + and /, #A .o. /)/8 and instead insisted t-at wor= computation provided in t-e collective bargaining agreements between t-e parties be observed. Since t-e claim for pay differentials is primarily anc-ored on t-e written contracts between t-e litigants, t-e ten*year prescriptive period provided by Art. %%//7%8 of t-e .ew #ivil #ode s-ould govern.2 Section 0*a of t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law 7#A .o. /// as amended by R.A. .o. %))++8 provides6 Any action to enforce any cause of action under t-is Act s-all be commenced wit-in t-ree years after t-e cause of action accrued ot-erwise suc- action s-all be forever barred, . . . . ,-e court furt-er e@plained6 ,-e t-ree*year prescriptive period fi@ed in t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law 7#A .o. /// as amended8 will apply, if t-e claim for differentials for overtime wor= is solely based on said law, and not on a collective bargaining agreement or any ot-er contract. !n t-e instant case, t-e claim for overtime compensation is not so muc- because of #ommonwealt- Act .o. ///, as amended but because t-e claim is demandable rig-t of t-e employees, by reason of t-e above*mentioned collective bargaining agreement. Section 0*a of t-e 4ig-t*;our Labor Law provides t-e prescriptive period for filing 2actions to enforce any cause of action under said law.2 n t-e ot-er -and, Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines provides t-e prescriptive period for filing 2money claims arising from employer*employee relations.2 ,-e claims in t-e cases at benc- all arose from t-e employer*employee relations, w-ic- is broader in scope t-an claims arising from a specific law or from t-e collective bargaining agreement. ,-e contention of t-e 3 4A Administrator, t-at t-e t-ree*year prescriptive period under Article ()% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines applies only to money claims specifically recoverable under said #ode, does not find support in t-e plain language of t-e provision. .eit-er is t-e contention of t-e claimants in G.R. .os. %&/)%%*%/ t-at said Article refers only to claims 2arising from t-e employer5s violation of t-e employee5s rig-t,2 as provided by t-e Labor #ode supported by t-e facial reading of t-e provision. G!! -*R* .o* !#/001 A. As to t-e first two grounds for t-e petition in G.R. .o. %&/001, claimants aver6 7%8 t-at w-ile t-eir complaints were filed on <une 1, %)9/ wit- 3 4A, t-e case was decided only on <anuary +&, %)9), a clear denial of t-eir rig-t to a speedy disposition of t-e case: and 7(8 t-at .LR# and t-e 3 4A Administrator s-ould -ave declared A!B# and BR!! in default 7Rollo, pp. +%*+'8. #laimants invo=e a new provision incorporated in t-e %)90 #onstitution, w-ic- provides6

Sec. %1. All persons s-all -ave t-e rig-t to a speedy disposition of t-eir cases before all Budicial, ?uasi*Budicial, or administrative bodies. !t is true t-at t-e constitutional rig-t to 2a speedy disposition of cases2 is not limited to t-e accused in criminal proceedings but e@tends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including Budicial and ?uasi*Budicial -earings. ;ence, under t-e #onstitution, any party to a case may demand e@peditious action on all officials w-o are tas=ed wit- t-e administration of Bustice. ;owever, as -eld in Caballero v* Alfonso 9r., %'+ S#RA %'+ 7%)908, 2speedy disposition of cases2 is a relative term. <ust li=e t-e constitutional guarantee of 2speedy trial2 accorded to t-e accused in all criminal proceedings, 2speedy disposition of cases2 is a fle@ible concept. !t is consistent wit- delays and depends upon t-e circumstances of eaccase. >-at t-e #onstitution pro-ibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays w-ic- render rig-ts nugatory. Caballero laid down t-e factors t-at may be ta=en into consideration in determining w-et-er or not t-e rig-t to a 2speedy disposition of cases2 -as been violated, t-us6 !n t-e determination of w-et-er or not t-e rig-t to a 2speedy trial2 -as been violated, certain factors may be considered and balanced against eac- ot-er. ,-ese are lengt- of delay, reason for t-e delay, assertion of t-e rig-t or failure to assert it, and preBudice caused by t-e delay. ,-e same factors may also be considered in answering Budicial in?uiry w-et-er or not a person officially c-arged wit- t-e administration of Bustice -as violated t-e speedy disposition of cases. Li=ewise, in -on:ales v* ,andiganbayan, %)) S#RA ()9, 7%))%8, we -eld6 !t must be -ere emp-asiAed t-at t-e rig-t to a speedy disposition of a case, li=e t-e rig-t to speedy trial, is deemed violated only w-en t-e proceeding is attended by ve@atious, capricious, and oppressive delays: or w-en unBustified postponements of t-e trial are as=ed for and secured, or w-en wit-out cause or Bustified motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse wit-out t-e party -aving -is case tried. Since <uly (', %)9/ or a mont- after A!B# and BR!! were served wit- a copy of t-e amended complaint, claimants -ad been as=ing t-at A!B# and BR!! be declared in default for failure to file t-eir answers wit-in t-e ten*day period provided in Section %, Rule !!! of Boo= G! of t-e Rules and Regulations of t-e 3 4A. At t-at time, t-ere was a pending motion of A!B# and BR!! to stri=e out of t-e records t-e amended complaint and t-e 2#ompliance2 of claimants to t-e order of t-e 3 4A, re?uiring t-em to submit a bill of particulars. ,-e cases at benc- are not of t-e run*of*t-e*mill variety, suc- t-at t-eir final disposition in t-e administrative level after seven years from t-eir inception, cannot be said to be attended by unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays as to violate t-e constitutional rig-ts to a speedy disposition of t-e cases of complainants. ,-e amended complaint filed on <une 1, %)9/ involved a total of %,010 claimants. Said complaint -ad undergone several amendments, t-e first being on April +, %)9'. ,-e claimants were -ired on various dates from %)0' to %)9+. ,-ey were deployed in different areas, one group in and t-e ot-er groups outside of, Ba-rain. ,-e monetary claims totalling more t-an CSF1' million according to Atty. Del Mundo, included6 %. Cne@pired portion of contract: (. !nterest earnings of ,ravel and $und: +. Retirement and Savings 3lan benefit: /. >ar None bonus or premium pay of at least %&&L of basic pay: '. Area Differential pay: 1. Accrued !nterest of all t-e unpaid benefits: 0. Salary differential pay: 9. >age Differential pay: ). Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to Social Security System: %&. Refund of >it--olding ,a@ not remitted to Bureau of !nternal Revenue 7B.!.R.8:

%%. $ringe Benefits under Brown D Root5s 2A Summary of 4mployees Benefits consisting of /+ pages 7Anne@ 2H2 of Amended #omplaint8: %(. Moral and 4@emplary Damages: %+. Attorney5s fees of at least ten percent of amounts: %/. t-er reliefs, li=e suspending and"or cancelling t-e license to recruit of A!B# and issued by t-e 3 4A: and %'. 3enalty for violation of Article +/ 73ro-ibited practices8 not e@cluding reportorial re?uirements t-ereof 7.LR# Resolution, September (, %))%, pp. %9*%): G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 0+*0/8. !nasmuc- as t-e complaint did not allege wit- sufficient definiteness and clarity of some facts, t-e claimants were ordered to comply wit- t-e motion of A!B# for a bill of particulars. >-en claimants filed t-eir 2#ompliance and Manifestation,2 A!B# moved to stri=e out t-e complaint from t-e records for failure of claimants to submit a proper bill of particulars. >-ile t-e 3 4A Administrator denied t-e motion to stri=e out t-e complaint, -e ordered t-e claimants 2to correct t-e deficiencies2 pointed out by A!B#. Before an intelligent answer could be filed in response to t-e complaint, t-e records of employment of t-e more t-an %,0&& claimants -ad to be retrieved from various countries in t-e Middle 4ast. Some of t-e records dated as far bac= as %)0'. ,-e -earings on t-e merits of t-e claims before t-e 3 4A Administrator were interrupted several times by t-e various appeals, first to .LR# and t-en to t-e Supreme #ourt. Aside from t-e inclusion of additional claimants, two new cases were filed against A!B# and BR!! on ctober %&, %)9' 73 4A #ases .os. L*9'*%&*000 and L*9'*%&*00)8. Anot-er complaint was filed on May (), %)91 73 4A #ase .o. L*91*&'*/1&8. .LR#, in e@asperation, noted t-at t-e e@act number of claimants -ad never been completely establis-ed 7Resolution, Sept. (, %))%, G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, p. '08. All t-e t-ree new cases were consolidated wit- 3 4A #ase .o. L*9/* &1*'''. .LR# blamed t-e parties and t-eir lawyers for t-e delay in terminating t-e proceedings, t-us6 ,-ese cases could -ave been spared t-e long and arduous route towards resolution -ad t-e parties and t-eir counsel been more interested in pursuing t-e trut- and t-e merits of t-e claims rat-er t-an e@-ibiting a fanatical reliance on tec-nicalities. 3arties and counsel -ave made t-ese cases a litigation of emotion. ,-e intransigence of parties and counsel is remar=able. As late as last mont-, t-is #ommission made a last and final attempt to bring t-e counsel of all t-e parties 7t-is #ommission issued a special order directing respondent Brown D Root5s resident agent"s to appear8 to come to a more conciliatory stance. 4ven t-is failed 7Rollo, p. '98. ,-e s?uabble between t-e lawyers of claimants added to t-e delay in t-e disposition of t-e cases, to t-e lament of .LR#, w-ic- complained6 !t is very evident from t-e records t-at t-e protagonists in t-ese consolidated cases appear to be not only t-e individual complainants, on t-e one -and, and A!B# and Brown D Root, on t-e ot-er -and. ,-e two lawyers for t-e complainants, Atty. Gerardo Del Mundo and Atty. $lorante De #astro, -ave yet to settle t-e rig-t of representation, eac- one persistently claiming to appear in be-alf of most of t-e complainants. As a result, t-ere are two appeals by t-e complainants. Attempts by t-is #ommission to resolve counsels5 conflicting claims of t-eir respective aut-ority to represent t-e complainants prove futile. ,-e bic=erings by t-ese two counsels are reflected in t-eir pleadings. !n t-e c-arges and counterc-arges of falsification of documents and signatures, and in t-e disbarment proceedings by one against t-e ot-er. All t-ese -ave, to a large e@tent, abetted in confounding t-e issues raised in t-ese cases, Bumble t-e presentation of evidence, and even derailed t-e prospects of an amicable settlement. !t would not be far*fetc-ed to imagine t-at bot- counsel, unwittingly, per-aps, painted a rainbow for t-e complainants, wit- t-e proverbial pot of gold at its end containing more t-an CSF%&& million, t-e aggregate of t-e claims in t-ese cases. !t is, li=ewise, not improbable t-at t-eir misplaced Aeal and e@uberance caused t-em to t-row all caution to t-e wind in t-e matter of elementary rules of procedure and evidence 7Rollo, pp. '9*')8.

Adding to t-e confusion in t-e proceedings before .LR#, is t-e listing of some of t-e complainants in bot- petitions filed by t-e two lawyers. As noted by .LR#, 2t-e problem created by t-is situation is t-at if one of t-e two petitions is dismissed, t-en t-e parties and t-e public respondents would not =now w-ic- claim of w-ic- petitioner was dismissed and w-ic- was not.2 B. #laimants insist t-at all t-eir claims could properly be consolidated in a 2class suit2 because 2all t-e named complainants -ave similar money claims and similar rig-ts soug-t irrespective of w-et-er t-ey wor=ed in Ba-rain, Cnited Arab 4mirates or in Abu D-abi, Libya or in any part of t-e Middle 4ast2 7Rollo, pp. +'*+98. A class suit is proper w-ere t-e subBect matter of t-e controversy is one of common or general interest to many and t-e parties are so numerous t-at it is impracticable to bring t-em all before t-e court 7Revised Rules of #ourt, Rule +, Sec. %(8. >-ile all t-e claims are for benefits granted under t-e Ba-rain Law, many of t-e claimants wor=ed outside Ba-rain. Some of t-e claimants were deployed in !ndonesia and Malaysia under different terms and conditions of employment. .LR# and t-e 3 4A Administrator are correct in t-eir stance t-at inasmuc- as t-e first re?uirement of a class suit is not present 7common or general interest based on t-e Amiri Decree of t-e State of Ba-rain8, it is only logical t-at only t-ose w-o wor=ed in Ba-rain s-all be entitled to file t-eir claims in a class suit. >-ile t-ere are common defendants 7A!B# and BR!!8 and t-e nature of t-e claims is t-e same 7for employee5s benefits8, t-ere is no common ?uestion of law or fact. >-ile some claims are based on t-e Amiri Law of Ba-rain, many of t-e claimants never wor=ed in t-at country, but were deployed elsew-ere. ,-us, eac- claimant is interested only in -is own demand and not in t-e claims of t-e ot-er employees of defendants. ,-e named claimants -ave a special or particular interest in specific benefits completely different from t-e benefits in w-ic- t-e ot-er named claimants and t-ose included as members of a 2class2 are claiming 7Berses v. Gillanueva, (' 3-il. /0+ I%)%+J8. !t appears t-at eac- claimant is only interested in collecting -is own claims. A claimants -as no concern in protecting t-e interests of t-e ot-er claimants as s-own by t-e fact, t-at -undreds of t-em -ave abandoned t-eir co*claimants and -ave entered into separate compromise settlements of t-eir respective claims. A principle basic to t-e concept of 2class suit2 is t-at plaintiffs broug-t on t-e record must fairly represent and protect t-e interests of t-e ot-ers 7Dimayuga v. #ourt of !ndustrial Relations, %&% 3-il. ')& I%)'0J8. $or t-is matter, t-e claimants w-o wor=ed in Ba-rain can not be allowed to sue in a class suit in a Budicial proceeding. ,-e most t-at can be accorded to t-em under t-e Rules of #ourt is to be allowed to Boin as plaintiffs in one complaint 7Revised Rules of #ourt, Rule +, Sec. 18. ,-e #ourt is e@tra*cautious in allowing class suits because t-ey are t-e e@ceptions to t-e condition sine qua non, re?uiring t-e Boinder of all indispensable parties. !n an improperly instituted class suit, t-ere would be no problem if t-e decision secured is favorable to t-e plaintiffs. ,-e problem arises w-en t-e decision is adverse to t-em, in w-ic- case t-e ot-ers w-o were impleaded by t-eir self* appointed representatives, would surely claim denial of due process. #. ,-e claimants in G.R. .o. %&/001 also urged t-at t-e 3 4A Administrator and .LR# s-ould -ave declared Atty. $lorante De #astro guilty of 2forum s-opping, ambulance c-asing activities, falsification, duplicity and ot-er unprofessional activities2 and -is appearances as counsel for some of t-e claimants as illegal 7 Rollo, pp. +9*/&8. ,-e Anti*$orum S-opping Rule 7Revised #ircular .o. (9*)%8 is intended to put a stop to t-e practice of some parties of filing multiple petitions and complaints involving t-e same issues, wit- t-e result t-at t-e courts or agencies -ave to resolve t-e same issues. Said Rule, -owever, applies only to petitions filed wit- t-e Supreme #ourt and t-e #ourt of Appeals. !t is entitled 2Additional Re?uirements $or 3etitions $iled wit- t-e Supreme #ourt and t-e #ourt of Appeals ,o 3revent $orum S-opping or Multiple $iling of 3etitioners and #omplainants.2 ,-e first sentence of t-e circular e@pressly states t-at said circular applies to an governs t-e filing of petitions in t-e Supreme #ourt and t-e #ourt of Appeals. >-ile Administrative #ircular .o. &/*)/ e@tended t-e application of t-e anti*forum s-opping rule to t-e lower courts and administrative agencies, said circular too= effect only on April %, %))/. 3 4A and .LR# could not -ave entertained t-e complaint for unet-ical conduct against Atty. De #astro because .LR# and 3 4A -ave no Burisdiction to investigate c-arges of unet-ical conduct of lawyers. Attorney&s 2ien ,-e 2.otice and #laim to 4nforce Attorney5s Lien2 dated December %/, %))( was filed by Atty. Gerardo A. Del

Mundo to protect -is claim for attorney5s fees for legal services rendered in favor of t-e claimants 7G.R. .o. %&/001, Rollo, pp. 9/%*9//8. A statement of a claim for a c-arging lien s-all be filed wit- t-e court or administrative agency w-ic- renders and e@ecutes t-e money Budgment secured by t-e lawyer for -is clients. ,-e lawyer s-all cause written notice t-ereof to be delivered to -is clients and to t-e adverse party 7Revised Rules of #ourt, Rule %+9, Sec. +08. ,-e statement of t-e claim for t-e c-arging lien of Atty. Del Mundo s-ould -ave been filed wit- t-e administrative agency t-at rendered and e@ecuted t-e Budgment. Contempt of Court ,-e complaint of Atty. Gerardo A. Del Mundo to cite Atty. $lorante De #astro and Atty. KatA ,ierra for violation of t-e #ode of 3rofessional Responsibility s-ould be filed in a separate and appropriate proceeding. -*R* .o* !#/3!!-!/ #laimants c-arge .LR# wit- grave abuse of discretion in not accepting t-eir formula of 2,-ree ;ours Average Daily vertime2 in computing t-e overtime payments. ,-ey claim t-at it was BR!! itself w-ic- proposed t-e formula during t-e negotiations for t-e settlement of t-eir claims in Ba-rain and t-erefore it is in estoppel to disclaim said offer 7Rollo, pp. (%*((8. #laimants presented a Memorandum of t-e Ministry of Labor of Ba-rain dated April %1, %)9+, w-ic- in pertinent part states6 After t-e perusal of t-e memorandum of t-e ;ice President and the Area 7anager 7iddle East of 6rown < Root Co. and t-e Summary of t-e compensation offered by t-e #ompany to t-e employees in respect of t-e difference of pay of t-e wages of t-e overtime and t-e difference of vacation leave and t-e perusal of t-e documents attac-ed t-ereto i.e., minutes of t-e meetings between t-e Representative of t-e employees and t-e management of t-e #ompany, t-e complaint filed by t-e employees on %/"("9+ w-ere t-ey -ave claimed as -ereinabove stated, sample of t-e Service #ontract e@ecuted between one of t-e employees and t-e company t-roug- its agent in 7sic8Philippines Asia 8nternational 6uilders Corporation w-ere it -as been provided for /9 -ours of wor= per wee= and an annual leave of %( days and an overtime wage of ! < !=/ of the normal hourly wage. @@@ @@@ @@@ ,-e #ompany in its computation reac-ed t-e following averages6 A. %. ,-e average duration of t-e actual service of t-e employee is +' mont-s for t-e 3-ilippino 7sic8 employees . . . . (. ,-e average wage per -our for t-e 3-ilippino 7sic8 employee is CSF(.1) . . . . +. )he average hours for the overtime is 4 hours plus in all public holidays and weekends . /. Payment of >,?(*0' per months @sicA of service as compensation for the difference of the wages of the overtime done for eac- 3-ilippino 7sic8 employee . . . 7Rollo, p.((8. BR!! and A!B# countered6 7%8 t-at t-e Memorandum was not prepared by t-em but by a subordinate official in t-e Ba-rain Department of Labor: 7(8 t-at t-ere was no s-owing t-at t-e Ba-rain Minister of Labor -ad approved said memorandum: and 7+8 t-at t-e offer was made in t-e course of t-e negotiation for an amicable settlement of t-e claims and t-erefore it was not admissible in evidence to prove t-at anyt-ing is due to t-e claimants. >-ile said document was presented to t-e 3 4A wit-out observing t-e rule on presenting official documents of a foreign government as provided in Section (/, Rule %+( of t-e %)9) Revised Rules on 4vidence, it can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body. ,-e opposing parties -ave a copy of t-e said memorandum, and t-ey could easily verify its aut-enticity and accuracy. ,-e admissibility of t-e offer of compromise made by BR!! as contained in t-e memorandum is anot-er matter. Cnder Section (0, Rule %+& of t-e %)9) Revised Rules on 4vidence, an offer to settle a claim is not an admission t-at anyt-ing is due. Said Rule provides6 ffer of compromise not admissible. E !n civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of

any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against t-e offeror. ,-is Rule is not only a rule of procedure to avoid t-e cluttering of t-e record wit- unwanted evidence but a statement of public policy. ,-ere is great public interest in -aving t-e protagonists settle t-eir differences amicable before t-ese ripen into litigation. 4very effort must be ta=en to encourage t-em to arrive at a settlement. ,-e submission of offers and counter*offers in t-e negotiation table is a step in t-e rig-t direction. But to bind a party to -is offers, as w-at claimants would ma=e t-is #ourt do, would defeat t-e salutary purpose of t-e Rule. -*R* .os* !#"#'3-4' A. .LR# applied t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01, w-ic- provides for greater benefits t-an t-ose stipulated in t-e overseas*employment contracts of t-e claimants. !t was of t-e belief t-at 2w-ere t-e laws of t-e -ost country are more favorable and beneficial to t-e wor=ers, t-en t-e laws of t-e -ost country s-all form part of t-e overseas employment contract.2 !t ?uoted wit- approval t-e observation of t-e 3 4A Administrator t-at 2. . . in labor proceedings, all doubts in t-e implementation of t-e provisions of t-e Labor #ode and its implementing regulations s-all be resolved in favor of labor2 7Rollo, pp. )&*)/8. A!B# and BR!! claim t-at .LR# acted capriciously and w-imsically w-en it refused to enforce t-e overseas* employment contracts, w-ic- became t-e law of t-e parties. ,-ey contend t-at t-e principle t-at a law is deemed to be a part of a contract applies only to provisions of 3-ilippine law in relation to contracts e@ecuted in t-e 3-ilippines. ,-e overseas*employment contracts, w-ic- were prepared by A!B# and BR!! t-emselves, provided t-at t-e laws of t-e -ost country became applicable to said contracts if t-ey offer terms and conditions more favorable t-at t-ose stipulated t-erein. !t was stipulated in said contracts t-at6 ,-e 4mployee agrees t-at w-ile in t-e employ of t-e 4mployer, -e will not engage in any ot-er business or occupation, nor see= employment wit- anyone ot-er t-an t-e 4mployer: t-at -e s-all devote -is entire time and attention and -is best energies, and abilities to t-e performance of sucduties as may be assigned to -im by t-e 4mployer: t-at -e s-all at all times be subBect to t-e direction and control of t-e 4mployer: and t-at t-e benefits provided to 4mployee -ereunder are substituted for and in lieu of all ot-er benefits provided by any applicable law, provided of course that total remuneration and benefits do not fall below that of the host country regulation or custom it being understood that should applicable laws establish that fringe benefits or other such benefits additional to the compensation herein agreed cannot be waived , 4mployee agrees t-at succompensation will be adBusted downward so t-at t-e total compensation -ereunder, plus t-e non* waivable benefits s-all be e?uivalent to t-e compensation -erein agreed 7Rollo, pp. +'(*+'+8. ,-e overseas*employment contracts could -ave been drafted more felicitously. >-ile a part t-ereof provides t-at t-e compensation to t-e employee may be 2adBusted downward so t-at t-e total computation 7t-ereunder8 plus t-e non* waivable benefits s-all be e?uivalent to t-e compensation2 t-erein agreed, anot-er part of t-e same provision categorically states 2t-at total remuneration and benefits do not fall below t-at of t-e -ost country regulation and custom.2 Any ambiguity in t-e overseas*employment contracts s-ould be interpreted against A!B# and BR!!, t-e parties t-at drafted it 74astern S-ipping Lines, !nc. v. Margarine*Ger=aufs*Cnion, )+ S#RA ('0 I%)0)J8. Article %+00 of t-e #ivil #ode of t-e 3-ilippines provides6 ,-e interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract s-all not favor t-e party w-o caused t-e obscurity. Said rule of interpretation is applicable to contracts of ad-esion w-ere t-ere is already a prepared form containing t-e stipulations of t-e employment contract and t-e employees merely 2ta=e it or leave it.2 ,-e presumption is t-at t-ere was an imposition by one party against t-e ot-er and t-at t-e employees signed t-e contracts out of necessity t-at reduced t-eir bargaining power 7$ieldmen5s !nsurance #o., !nc. v. Songco, (' S#RA 0& I%)19J8. Applying t-e said legal precepts, we read t-e overseas*employment contracts in ?uestion as adopting t-e provisions of t-e Amiri Decree .o. (+ of %)01 as part and parcel t-ereof. ,-e parties to a contract may select t-e law by w-ic- it is to be governed 7#-es-ire, 3rivate !nternational Law, %90 I0t- ed.J8. !n suc- a case, t-e foreign law is adopted as a 2system2 to regulate t-e relations of t-e parties, including ?uestions of t-eir capacity to enter into t-e contract, t-e formalities to be observed by t-em, matters of performance,

and so fort- 7%1 Am <ur (d, %'&*%1%8. !nstead of adopting t-e entire mass of t-e foreign law, t-e parties may Bust agree t-at specific provisions of a foreign statute s-all be deemed incorporated into t-eir contract 2as a set of terms.2 By suc- reference to t-e provisions of t-e foreign law, t-e contract does not become a foreign contract to be governed by t-e foreign law. ,-e said law does not operate as a statute but as a set of contractual terms deemed written in t-e contract 7Anton, 3rivate !nternational Law, %)0 I%)10J: Dicey and Morris, ,-e #onflict of Laws, 0&(*0&+, I9t- ed.J8. A basic policy of contract is to protect t-e e@pectation of t-e parties 7Reese, #-oice of Law in ,orts and #ontracts, %1 #olumbia <ournal of ,ransnational Law %, (% I%)00J8. Suc- party e@pectation is protected by giving effect to t-e parties5 own c-oice of t-e applicable law 7$ric=e v. !sbrandtsen #o., !nc., %'% $. Supp. /1', /10 I%)'0J8. ,-e c-oice of law must, -owever, bear some relations-ip to t-e parties or t-eir transaction 7Scoles and ;ayes, #onflict of Law 1//* 1/0 I%)9(J8. ,-ere is no ?uestion t-at t-e contracts soug-t to be enforced by claimants -ave a direct connection witt-e Ba-rain law because t-e services were rendered in t-at country. !n .orse 7anagement Co* @P)EA v* .ational ,eamen 6oard , %%0 S#RA /91 7%)9(8, t-e 24mployment Agreement,2 between .orse Management #o. and t-e late -usband of t-e private respondent, e@pressly provided t-at in t-e event of illness or inBury to t-e employee arising out of and in t-e course of -is employment and not due to -is own misconduct, 2compensation s-all be paid to employee in accordance wit- and subBect to t-e limitation of t-e >or=men5s #ompensation Act of t-e Republic of t-e 3-ilippines or t-e >or=er5s !nsurance Act of registry of t-e vessel, w-ic-ever is greater.2 Since t-e laws of Singapore, t-e place of registry of t-e vessel in w-ic- t-e late -usband of private respondent served at t-e time of -is deat-, granted a better compensation pac=age, we applied said foreign law in preference to t-e terms of t-e contract. ,-e case of 6agong +ilipinas Bverseas Corporation v* .ational 2abor Relations Commission , %+' S#RA (09 7%)9'8, relied upon by A!B# and BR!! is inapposite to t-e facts of t-e cases at benc-. ,-e issue in t-at case was w-et-er t-e amount of t-e deat- compensation of a $ilipino seaman s-ould be determined under t-e s-ipboard employment contract e@ecuted in t-e 3-ilippines or t-e ;ong=ong law. ;olding t-at t-e s-ipboard employment contract was controlling, t-e court differentiated said case from .orse Management #o. in t-at in t-e latter case t-ere was an e@press stipulation in t-e employment contract t-at t-e foreign law would be applicable if it afforded greater compensation. B. A!B# and BR!! claim t-at t-ey were denied by .LR# of t-eir rig-t to due process w-en said administrative agency granted $riday*pay differential, -oliday*pay differential, annual*leave differential and leave indemnity pay to t-e claimants listed in Anne@ B of t-e Resolution. At first, .LR# reversed t-e resolution of t-e 3 4A Administrator granting t-ese benefits on a finding t-at t-e 3 4A Administrator failed to consider t-e evidence presented by A!B# and BR!!, t-at some findings of fact of t-e 3 4A Administrator were not supported by t-e evidence, and t-at some of t-e evidence were not disclosed to A!B# and BR!! 7 Rollo, pp. +'*+1: %&1*%&08. But instead of remanding t-e case to t-e 3 4A Administrator for a new -earing, w-ic- means furt-er delay in t-e termination of t-e case, .LR# decided to pass upon t-e validity of t-e claims itself. !t is t-is procedure t-at A!B# and BR!! complain of as being irregular and a 2reversible error.2 ,-ey pointed out t-at .LR# too= into consideration evidence submitted on appeal, t-e same evidence w-ic- .LR# found to -ave been 2unilaterally submitted by t-e claimants and not disclosed to t-e adverse parties2 7 Rollo, pp. +0* +)8. .LR# noted t-at so many pieces of evidentiary matters were submitted to t-e 3 4A administrator by t-e claimants after t-e cases were deemed submitted for resolution and w-ic- were ta=en cogniAance of by t-e 3 4A Administrator in resolving t-e cases. >-ile A!B# and BR!! -ad no opportunity to refute said evidence of t-e claimants before t-e 3 4A Administrator, t-ey -ad all t-e opportunity to rebut said evidence and to present t-eir counter*evidence before .LR#. As a matter of fact, A!B# and BR!! t-emselves were able to present before .LR# additional evidence w-ic- t-ey failed to present before t-e 3 4A Administrator. Cnder Article ((% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, .LR# is enBoined to 2use every and all reasonable means to ascertain t-e facts in eac- case speedily and obBectively and wit-out regard to tec-nicalities of law or procedure, all in t-e interest of due process.2 !n deciding to resolve t-e validity of certain claims on t-e basis of t-e evidence of bot- parties submitted before t-e 3 4A Administrator and .LR#, t-e latter considered t-at it was not e@pedient to remand t-e cases to t-e 3 4A

Administrator for t-at would only prolong t-e already protracted legal controversies. 4ven t-e Supreme #ourt -as decided appealed cases on t-e merits instead of remanding t-em to t-e trial court for t-e reception of evidence, w-ere t-e same can be readily determined from t-e uncontroverted facts on record 7Development Ban= of t-e 3-ilippines v. !ntermediate Appellate #ourt, %)& S#RA 1'+ I%))&J: 3agdonsalan v. .ational Labor Relations #ommission, %(0 S#RA /1+ I%)9/J8. #. A!B# and BR!! c-arge .LR# wit- grave abuse of discretion w-en it ordered t-e 3 4A Administrator to -old new -earings for 19+ claimants listed in Anne@ D of t-e Resolution dated September (, %))% w-ose claims -ad been denied by t-e 3 4A Administrator 2for lac= of proof2 and for 1) claimants listed in Anne@ 4 of t-e same Resolution, w-ose claims -ad been found by .LR# itself as not 2supported by evidence2 7Rollo, pp. /%*/'8. .LR# based its ruling on Article (%97c8 of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines, w-ic- empowers it 2ItoJ conduct investigation for t-e determination of a ?uestion, matter or controversy, wit-in its Burisdiction, . . . .2 !t is t-e posture of A!B# and BR!! t-at .LR# -as no aut-ority under Article (%97c8 to remand a case involving claims w-ic- -ad already been dismissed because suc- provision contemplates only situations w-ere t-ere is still a ?uestion or controversy to be resolved 7Rollo, pp. /%*/(8. A principle well embedded in Administrative Law is t-at t-e tec-nical rules of procedure and evidence do not apply to t-e proceedings conducted by administrative agencies 7$irst Asian ,ransport D S-ipping Agency, !nc. v. ple, %/( S#RA '/( I%)91J: Asiaworld 3ublis-ing ;ouse, !nc. v. ple, %'( S#RA (%) I%)90J8. ,-is principle is ens-rined in Article ((% of t-e Labor #ode of t-e 3-ilippines and is now t-e bedroc= of proceedings before .LR#. .otwit-standing t-e non*applicability of tec-nical rules of procedure and evidence in administrative proceedings, t-ere are cardinal rules w-ic- must be observed by t-e -earing officers in order to comply wit- t-e due process re?uirements of t-e #onstitution. ,-ese cardinal rules are collated in Ang )ibay v* Court of 8ndustrial Relations , 1) 3-il. 1+' 7%)/&8. G!!! ,-e t-ree petitions were filed under Rule 1' of t-e Revised Rules of #ourt on t-e grounds t-at .LR# -ad committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac= of Burisdiction in issuing t-e ?uestioned orders. >e find no suc- abuse of discretion. >;4R4$ R4, all t-e t-ree petitions are D!SM!SS4D. S RD4R4D. A..4O A L!S, $ #LA!MA.,S >; S!G.4D HC!,#LA!MS Bienvenido #adalin Ardon 4llo Antonio Acupan <osefino R. 4nano BenBamin AleBandre Rolando 4. 4spiritu >ilfredo Aligada 3atricio L. Garcia <r. Robert Batica $elino M. <ocson 4nrico Belen 4duardo S. Kolimlim Guillermo #abeAa 4mmanuel #. Labella Rodolfo #agatan 4rnesto S. Lising $rancisco De GuAman 4dilberto G. Magat !gnacio De Gera Gictoriano L. Matilla 4rnesto De la #ruA Renato G. Morada Reynaldo DiAon !ldefonso #. MuPoA Ricardo 4brada ;erbert G. .g Antonio 4Bercito Reynado cAon 4duardo 4spiritu Romeo rial 4rnesto 4spiritu Ricardo 3aguio Rodolfo 4spiritu 4milio 3a=ingan ligario $rancisco 4rnesto S. 3angan Padilla Cavide 9r* 6ellosillo and Dapunan 99* concur.

Antonio <ocson Albert L. Huinto AleBandro lorino Romulo M. Reyes 4fren Lirio Leonilo ,iposo .oel MartineA Manual 3. Gillanueva $rancis Mediodia Arnaldo <. AlonAo Luciano MelendeA 3astor M. A?uino Reymundo Milay Ramon #astro <ose 3anc-o Graciano !sla Modesto 3in 3in Renato Matilla Gaudencio Retana Ricardo B. Morada Rodelio Rieta, <r. 3acifico D. .avarro <ose RobleAa 4ugenio A. Remon?uillo .emeriano San Mateo $eli@ Barcena <uanito Santos 4liseo $aBardo 3a?uito Solanto Sergio S. Santiago #onrado Solis, <r. Antonio R. Rodri?ueA Menandro ,emprosa Luis Gal B. Ron?uillo Ma@imiano ,orres ,eodorico #. Del Rosario $rancisco ,rias <oselito #. Solante Delfin Gictoria Ricardo #. Dayrit Gilbert Gictoria Antonio 3. ;ilario Domingo Gilla-ermosa 4dgardo . Salonga Rogelio Gillanueva Dante #. Aceres <ose M. Aban Reynaldo S. AcoBido Amorsolo S. Anading 4sidro M. A?uino Alfredo S. Balogo Rosendo M. A?uino Ramon ,. BarboAa Rodolfo D. Arevalo $eli@ M. Bobier Re@y De Leon Ascuncion <ose ;. #astillo Basilio Buenaventura 4mmanuel ;. #astillo Ale@ander Bustamante Remar R. #astroBereA Girgilio G. Butiong, <r. Romeo . #ecilio Delfin #aballero Bayani M. Dayrit Danilo M. #astro $eliAardo S. Delos Santos $ranscisco . #orvera .estor .. 4stava 4dgardo .. Dayacap Rolando M. Garcia .apoleon S. De Luna Angel D. Guda BenBamin 4. DoAa ;enry L. <acob Renato A. 4duarte Dante A. Matreo #lyde #. 4stuye Renato S. Melo Buenaventura M. $rancisco Resurrecion D. .aAareno Rogelio D. Guanio <aime #. 3ollos Arnel L. <acob Domingo 3ondales Renato S. Lising 4ugenio RamireA >ilfredo S. Lising Lucien M. Respall Rogelio S. Lopena Alvin #. Reyes Bernardito G. LoreBa RiAalina R. Reyes !gnacio 4. MuPoA Huirino Ron?uillo Romeo #. Huintos Avelino M. Ro?ue >illafredo Dayrit Raymundo 3edro L. Salgatar Girgilio L. Rosario Rodolfo ,. Sultan <oselito Santiago Benedicto 4. ,orres 4rnesto G. Sta. Maria Sergio A. Crsolino Gavino C. ,uaAon Rogelio R. GaldeA 4lito S. Gillanueva Dionisio Bobongo Lamberto H. Alcantara #risenciano Miranda Arturo 3. Apilado

!ldefonso #. Molina ,uriano G. #oncepcion Gorgonio #. 3arala Domingo G. Dela #ruA Girgilio RicaAa 4duardo R. 4nguanc-o 3alconeri D. Banaag Melanio R. 4steron Bayani S. Bracamante Santiago .. Galoso nofre De Rama <oveniano ;ilado <ose #. Melanes 4duardo ;ipolito Romeo !. 3atag Romero M. <avier Galerio A. 4vangelista Galentino S. <ocson Gilbert 4. 4brada <ose B. Lacson <uanito 3. Gillarino Armando M. Magsino Aristeo M. Bicol Avelino . .u?ui Huiterio R. Agudo Delmar $. 3ineda Marianito <. Alcantara $ederico ,. Huiman <ose Arevalo Alberto M. RedaAa Ramon A. Arevalo Renosa Ron?uillo <esus Baya Rodolfo Ron?uillo Guillermo BuenconseBo Antonio ,. Galderama ,eresito A. #onstantino Ramon Galderama 4duardo A. DiaA Benigno .. MelendeA 4migdio Abar?ueA #laudio A. Modesto ;erbert Ayo Solomon Reyes Mario Bataclan !saias ,alactac Ricardo rdoneA >illiam G. ,aruc Bernardino Robillos scar #. #alderon $rancisco Gillaflores 3acifico 3. #ampano Angel Gillarba 4ulalio G. Arguelles ;onesto <ardiniano Ben G. Belir <uan M. lindo #ornelio L. #astillo ;ernani ,. Gictoriano Galeriano B. $rancisco Cbed B. 4llo, Sr. <aime L. Relosa 4rnesto G. Macaraig Ale@ H. Gilla-ermosa 4spiritu A. MunoA, Sr. Givencio G. Abello, <r. Rodrigo 4. campo Renato #. #orcuera Rodolfo G. RamireA 4miliano B. Dela #ruA, <r. #eferino Batitis 4steban B. <ose, <r. Augusto R. Bondoc Ricardo B. MartineA <aime #. #atli Bienvenido Gergara Gerardo B. Limuaco, <r. 3edro G. #agatan Macario S. Magsino $rancisco Apolinario Domingo B. Solano Miguel Abestano Ricardo De Rama 3rudencio Araullo Arturo G. Araullo