6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly in this action', cannot be sustained though. We agree with the respondentsappellants' position that there is really no basis, in fact and in law, to make individual respondent-appellant liable both by way of official capacity as officer and in his individual capacity. Worded differently, since the corporate employer has already been specified in the case, his inclusion in the caption of the case is therefore immaterial. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only, insofar as Our order for individual respondent-appellant to be deleted from the dispositive portion. SO ORDERED.[34] Career and Columbian moved to reconsider, but in a July 31, 2008 Resolution,[35] the NLRC held its ground. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Career and Columbian went up to the CA on certiorari. On May 22, 2012, the CA issued the assailed Decision, decreeing as follows: As gleaned from the above-cited issues, petitioners anchor this Petition on procedural and substantive grounds. Anent the procedural matter, petitioners question the assumption of jurisdiction by the Labor Arbiter in this case on the supposition mat the case should have been lodged with the Voluntary Arbitrator, in accordance with Section 29 of POEA Standard Contract. As to substantive matters, on the other hand, petitioners bewail the common decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to grant disability benefits and other monetary awards to private respondent on the theory that their decisions are bereft of factual basis and were done in utter disregard of evidence as well as applicable laws and jurisprudence. Resolving the issue of jurisdiction, We are of the considered view that petitioners cannot fault the Labor Arbiter for taking cognizance of this case. Section 29 of the POEA Standard Contract is explicit that the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators have jurisdiction only when the claim or dispute arises from employment. In the instant case, the Labor Arbiter was correct that there was no longer an employer-employee relationship existing between the parties when private respondent filed the Complaint. Consequently, We agree with the Labor Arbiter that Section 31 of the POEA Standard Contract, and not Section 29 thereof, should apply in this case. As said provision states 'SECTION 31. APPLICABLE LAW Any unresolved dispute, claim or grievance arising out of or in connection with this Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63469 12/31