Scribd
Upload
90 views2 pages

Eastern Mediterranean Vs Surio, Et. Al (Case Digest)

Respondents were crewmembers on a vessel owned by petitioner. They complained about delayed wages and poor working conditions. After negotiations with the ITF, respondents received wage differentials and were repatriated. Petitioners then filed a disciplinary complaint against respondents. The issue is whether RA 8042, which limits the NLRC's jurisdiction over certain cases, applies retroactively. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8042 applies retroactively as it is a procedural law, and procedural laws can be applied to pending cases. As such, the NLRC properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Mary Anne Turiano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views2 pages

Eastern Mediterranean Vs Surio, Et. Al (Case Digest)

Respondents were crewmembers on a vessel owned by petitioner. They complained about delayed wages and poor working conditions. After negotiations with the ITF, respondents received wage differentials and were repatriated. Petitioners then filed a disciplinary complaint against respondents. The issue is whether RA 8042, which limits the NLRC's jurisdiction over certain cases, applies retroactively. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8042 applies retroactively as it is a procedural law, and procedural laws can be applied to pending cases. As such, the NLRC properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Mary Anne Turiano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN MARITIME LTD.

AND AGEMAR MANNING


AGENCY, INC., vs. EST ANISLAO SURIO, et. al
G.R. No. 154213, August 23, 2012
BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:

Respondents were former crewmembers of MT Seadance, a vessel owned by petitioner Eastern


Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. and manned and operated by petitioner Agemar Manning Agency,
Inc. While on board, they complained about the delays in the payment of their wages and
remittances, and poor working conditions. When the authorities from the International Transport
Federation (ITF) found out about this, negotiations between the ITF and the vessel owner on the
increase in respondents’ wages was had, but, it resulted instead to the payment by the vessel owner
of wage differentials and the immediate repatriation of respondents to the Philippines.
Thereafter, herein petitioners filed a complaint for disciplinary action based on breach of discipline
and for the reimbursement of the wage increases in the Workers Assistance and Adjudication Office
of the POEA against respondents. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the administrative complaint
in the POEA, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) took
effect.
The complaint for disciplinary action was dismissed by POEA. Eastern then elevated the matter to
the NLRC. However, The NLRC also dismissed the case stating that the Commission has no
jurisdiction to review cases decided by the POEA Administrator involving disciplinary actions for
under the newly enacted law, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the Labor
Arbiter shall have jurisdiction over money claims involving employer-employee relationship (Sec.
10, R.A. 8042). There is nothing in the said law providing that appeals from decisions arising from
complaint for disciplinary action rest in the Commission. The same was also denied in the Court of
Appeals.
Petitioners submitted the case to the Supreme Court contending that both the CA and the NLRC had
no basis to rule that the NLRC had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because R.A. 8042 had not
provided for its retroactive application.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 8042 should be applied retroactively.

RULINGS: The SC ruled in the affirmative.


Petitioners’ position that RA No. 8042 should not be applied retroactively to the review of the
POEA’s decision dismissing their complaint against respondents has no support in jurisprudence.
Although, as a rule, all laws are prospective in application unless the contrary is expressly provided,
or unless the law is procedural or curative in nature, there is no serious question about the
retroactive applicability of R.A 8042 to the appeal of the POEA’s decision on petitioners’
disciplinary action since RA No. 8042, in a way, was a procedural law due to its providing or
omitting guidelines on appeal.
Moreover, in De Los Santos v. Vda. De Mangubat, as cited in this case, “…procedural laws do not
come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive
operation of statues ― they may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at
the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is
adversely affected, insomuch as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.” Thus, R.A 8042
applies to petitioners’ complaint by virtue of the case being then still pending or undetermined at
the time of the law’s passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure. They could not
validly insist that the reckoning period to ascertain which law or rule should apply was the time
when the disciplinary complaint was originally filed in the POEA in 1993. Also, Republic Act No.
8042 and its implementing rules and regulations were already in effect when petitioners took their
appeal.
As such, petitioners’ insistence that the NLRC should have appellate authority over the POEA’s
decision in the disciplinary action because their complaint against respondents was filed in 1993
and RA 8042 took effect in 1995 was unwarranted.
Therefore, from the foregoing, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
xxx
*MAT

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy