UR Employed International Corporation v. Pinmiliw et al., G.R. No.

225263, March 16, 2022 –

Discuss why primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and
authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter
under its specific competence does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.

UR Employed International Corporation v. Pinmiliw et al., G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022

Facts:
 Employment and Contract Terms: On May 11, 2011, U R Employed International Corporation
(UREIC) hired Mike A. Pinmiliw, Murphy P. Pacya, Simon M. Bastog, and Ryan D. Ayochok as
construction workers for The W Construction (TWC) in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Their
contracts were for two years with a basic monthly salary of RM800.
 Conditions in Malaysia: Upon arrival, their passports were confiscated by a broker, and they
faced unsafe living conditions, including overcrowded quarters with poor sanitation and
ventilation. They worked beyond regular hours without pay and later discovered they only had
tourist visas, not work permits.
 Grievances and Response: Their grievances were ignored by the broker, leading Ryan to seek
assistance by emailing the Baguio Midland Courier on August 14, 2011. TWC's human relations
officer summoned the respondents, and on September 13, 2011, they were informed of their
termination and impending repatriation, delayed until November 2011, during which their food
supply was cut off.
 Legal Action: On December 5, 2011, the respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
money claims against UREIC and Pamela T. Miguel. The complaint was initially dismissed on
March 12, 2012, for failure to submit position papers but was reinstated on March 26, 2012.
 Claims: The respondents claimed they were promised good working conditions and sought
payment for the unexpired portion of their contracts, overtime pay, refund of placement fees,
transportation costs, illegal deductions, damages, and attorney's fees.
 Petitioners' Defense: Petitioners denied the allegations, asserting that the respondents
voluntarily resigned, except for Ryan, who was terminated for grave misconduct.
 Labor Arbiter and NLRC Findings: The Labor Arbiter (LA) found the respondents were
constructively dismissed and awarded them reimbursement of placement fees, backwages,
damages, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the
LA's decision.
 Court of Appeals Decision: The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petitioners' certiorari
petition, emphasizing the relaxation of technical rules in labor cases and the substantial evidence
supporting the respondents' claims. Petitioners' subsequent motions for reconsideration were
denied, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
1. Were the respondents illegally dismissed by UREIC and Pamela T. Miguel?
2. Did the CA err in not declaring that the NLRC and the LA committed grave abuse of discretion
by violating the doctrines of primary administrative jurisdiction and immutability of judgment?

Ruling:
1. Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed.
2. No, the CA did not err in its decision.

Ratio:
 Merit of Petition: The Supreme Court found the petition to be without merit.
 Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which prevents courts
from resolving controversies within the special competence of administrative bodies, did not
UR Employed International Corporation v. Pinmiliw et al., G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022 –
Discuss why primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and
authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter
under its specific competence does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.

apply because the LA and POEA complaints involved different causes of action. The LA
complaint concerned illegal dismissal and money claims, while the POEA complaint involved
administrative disciplinary liability. The jurisdiction of these bodies does not intersect.
 Immutability of Judgments: The doctrine of immutability of judgments, which prevents
modification of final decisions, did not apply as the DOLE's Order only addressed the POEA
complaint and not the illegal dismissal and money claims.
 Factual Findings: The factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, confirmed by the CA, were
based on substantial evidence and are binding upon the Supreme Court. The LA, NLRC, and CA
unanimously found that the respondents were illegally dismissed, and there was no voluntary
resignation or just cause for Ryan's dismissal.
 Monetary Awards: The monetary awards granted by the LA, including backwages, refund of
placement fees, damages, and attorney's fees, were affirmed with the modification that they shall
earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of the decision until
fully paid.

Background and Introduction

The case of U R Employed International Corp. v. Pinmiliw involves a group of construction workers
who were hired by U R Employed International Corporation (UREIC) to work in Malaysia. The
workers, namely Mike A. Pinmiliw, Murphy P. Pacya, Simon M. Bastog, and Ryan D. Ayochok, were
promised good working conditions and suitable living quarters and food. However, upon their arrival
in Malaysia, they were subjected to unbearable working conditions and were made to live in crowded
and unsanitary quarters. They also discovered that they only had tourist visas and did not have work
permits, which led to them being hidden from the authorities by UREIC's principal, The W
Construction (TWC).

Grievances and Termination

The workers reported their grievances to their broker but were ignored. In desperation, one of the
workers sent an email to a local newspaper seeking assistance. As a result, TWC's human relations
officer summoned the workers and questioned them about the email. Subsequently, the workers were
terminated and were promised repatriation, but they were only sent home months later. During this
time, their food supply was cut off.

Complaint and Rulings

The workers filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against UREIC and its
administrator, Pamela T. Miguel. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the workers, finding that
they were constructively dismissed due to the unbearable working conditions. The LA also awarded
them reimbursement of placement fees, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees. The National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's ruling, and the Court of Appeals (CA)
dismissed UREIC's petition for certiorari.

UREIC's Appeal and Supreme Court Decision

UREIC appealed to the CA, arguing that the labor tribunals violated the doctrines of primary
administrative jurisdiction and immutability of judgment. UREIC also claimed that the POEA and
DOLE had previously dismissed the workers' complaint for failure to substantiate their allegations.
However, the CA upheld the labor tribunals' rulings, stating that there was substantial evidence to
prove the workers' illegal dismissal.
UR Employed International Corporation v. Pinmiliw et al., G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022 –
Discuss why primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and
authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter
under its specific competence does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.

In its decision, the Supreme Court found UREIC's petition to be without merit. The Court explained
that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply in this case because the LA and the POEA had
different jurisdictions. The LA had jurisdiction over claims arising from an employer-employee
relationship, while the POEA had jurisdiction over pre-employment/recruitment violation cases. The
Court also noted that the doctrine of immutability of judgments did not apply because the DOLE's
order had already settled the issue of whether UREIC violated the workers' rights.

Court's Decision and Monetary Awards

The Court affirmed the findings of the labor tribunals and awarded the workers backwages, refund of
placement fees, damages, and attorney's fees. The monetary awards were to earn legal interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of the decision until fully paid.

!!!!!
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in not declaring that the NLRC and the LA committed grave abuse of
discretion by violating the doctrines of primary administrative jurisdiction and immutability of
judgment. We find the petition bereft of merit.

In the case of Engr. Lim v. Hon Gamosa, the Court cited that: Primary jurisdiction, also known as the
doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an
administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction prevents the court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy which falls under the jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed with special competence.
Furthermore, Primary jurisdiction does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction. It applies where
a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim
requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special
competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending
referral of the issues to the administrative body for its review. In some instances, an administrative
body is granted primary jurisdiction, concurrent with another government agency or the regular
court.

In this case, while the respondents alleged the same set of facts and the same affidavits were
submitted
before the LA and the POEA, the complaints raised different causes of action. The LA complaint
involved the issue of illegal dismissal and various money claims, while the POEA complaint
involved administrative disciplinary liability for violation of the 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations
Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-ABased Overseas Workers. Thus, the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction does not apply. Moreover, a review of the respective jurisdictions of the
POEA and the LA reveals that these administrative bodies do not have concurrent jurisdiction. On
the one hand, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act
(RA) No. 10022,
provides that the LA shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other
forms of damage.
UR Employed International Corporation v. Pinmiliw et al., G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022 –
Discuss why primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and
authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter
under its specific competence does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of these administrative bodies does not in any way intersect as to warrant the
application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appreciation by the POEA and
LA of the complaints should be limited to matters falling within their respective jurisdictions, and
only insofar as relevant to the resolution of the controversies presented before them.