8/20/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly phrase "all disputes" is not sufficient to divest the LA of its jurisdiction over termination disputes. In the same manner, the phrase "all claims and complaints" in respondents' employment contracts does not remove the LA's jurisdiction to decide whether respondents were legally terminated.[29] Hence, AICI filed this petition. The Issues Before the Court The issues before the Court are whether or not: (a) the LA correctly took cognizance of this case; and (b) AICI is liable for respondents' illegal dismissal. The Court's Ruling Preliminarily, it bears stressing that AICI does not assail the CA's ruling of illegal dismissal but instead, argues that the LA incorrectly took cognizance of the case at the onset. It insists that based on the dispute settlement provision in respondents' employment contracts, the "primary jurisdiction" to decide this case is with the "[Labor] Attache or any [authorized] representative of the Philippine[] Embassy nearest the site of employment" (designated person).[30] After a judicious review of the case, the Court denies the petition. Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042,[31] as amended by RA 10022,[32] explicitly provides that LAs have original and exclusive[33] 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: 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 virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. x x x (Emphases supplied) Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law[34] and cannot be acquired or waived by agreement of the parties.[35] 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 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64949 3/11