Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In June 1984, a class suit action (with some 728 claimants) was filed with the POEA
for money claims arising from their recruitment by AIBC and employment by BRII.
The complaint principally sought the payment of the unexpired portion of the
employment contracts, which was terminated prematurely, and secondarily, salary
differential and interests on benefits that the claimants claim to deserve; as well as
the suspension of the license of AIBC and the accreditation of BRII.
The NLRC promulgated a resolution granting some of 149 claims and the rest of the
claims were either dismissed for having prescribed or dismissed because the
claimants appear to have worked elsewhere hence cannot be granted their claims.
The NLRC had various issues to resolve, including the issue as to whether or not the
complainants are entitled to the benefits provided by Amiri Decree No. 23; and
more importantly, assuming the decree is applicable in these cases, whether the
complainants claim for the benefits provided there in have prescribed already.
It held that the Amiri Decree No. 23 applied only to the claimants and that the
prescriptive period for the filing of the claims of the complainants was three years,
as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code and not one year as provided in the
Amiri Decree No. 23.
ISSUE/S:
Whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree
No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law.