Labor arbiter’s exclusive jurisdiction

The dispute settlement provision in respondents’ employment contracts cannot divest the LA of its jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case.

In 2010, respondents Elfrenito B. Bartolome and Rumby L. Yamat applied as carpenter and tile setter, respectively, with petitioner Augustin International Center Inc. (AICI), an employment agency providing human resources to foreign corporations.

They were eventually engaged by Golden Arrow Company Ltd., which had its office in Khartoum, Republic of Sudan.

They signed their respective employment contracts stating that they would render services for a period of not less than 24 months. Their contracts included a provision that all claims and complaints relative to their employment must be settled in accordance with company policies, rules and regulations. Should the employee contest the employer’s decision, the matter will be settled amicably with the participation of the labor attaché or any authorized representative of the Philippine Embassy nearest the site of employment.

On May 2, 2012, they were dismissed from the service by Al Mamoun Trading and Investment Company (Al Mamoun), AICI’s sister company, where they were transferred.

In a complaint for illegal dismissal, breach of contract and payment of unexpired portion of the contract filed by respondents against AICI and Al Mamoun, the latter in their motion for reconsideration

before the Court of Appeals (CA) invoked for the first time the defense that they were denied due process because respondents did not first contest their termination “before the Labor Attaché or any authorized representative of the Philippine Embassy nearest the site of employment” as stipulated in their employment contracts, before filing the complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA).

Does this defense prosper?

Ruling: No.

After a judicious review of the case, the Court denied the petition.

Section 10 of Republic Act (RA) 8042, as amended by RA 10022, explicitly provides that LA’s have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising out of employer-employee relations or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment, as in this case. The relevant portion of the provision reads: tue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be acquired or waived by agreement of the parties. As herein applied, the dispute settlement provision in respondents’ employment contracts cannot divest the LA of its jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case. Hence, it correctly took cognizance of the complaint filed by respondents before it.

Moreover, issues not raised in the previous proceedings cannot be raised for the first time at a late stage.

In this case, the Court observes that AICI failed to raise the issue of respondents’ supposed non-compliance with the dispute settlement provision before the LA, as well as before the NLRC. In fact, AICI only mentioned this issue for the first time before the CA in its motion for reconsideration. Therefore, such argument or defense is deemed waived and can no longer be considered on appeal. Hence, the Court rules that the LA properly took cognizance of this case. (Augustin International Center, Inc. vs. Elfrenito B. Bartolome and Rumby L. Yamat, G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019).

Section 10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by vir