6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On April 30, 2008, the NLRC issued a Decision[33] declaring as follows: Aggrieved by the adverse ruling, the respondents-appellants interposed the instant appeal premised on serious errors, allegedly committed by the Labor Arbiter, such as: 1. In ruling that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the complaint a quo; 2. In awarding disability benefits to appellee; 3. In ruling that appellee is entitled to sickness allowance amounting to US$475.00; 4. In failing to consider that appellee's claims for medical expenses against appellants have been fully paid; 5. In awarding moral and exemplary damages; and, 6. In holding individual appellant personally liable. WE MODIFY. xxxx It must be stressed though that pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, entitled Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, 'the Labor Arbiter of the 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 involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment x x x.' Similarly, under the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, particularly Section (G), Rule V, thereof, explicitly provides that: 'Section 1. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters. - Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases, including workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural; xxxx g) Money claims arising out of 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.' It is also observed that the respondents-appellants herein vigorously participated and argued their defense during the proceedings below, hence, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469 10/31