6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly which accrued and was filed when the two above mentioned Presidential Decrees were in force."[6] Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari reiterating the argument that: "The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the Labor Arbiter's void judgment in the case a quo." [7] It asserts that E.O. No. 797 divested the Labor Arbiter of his authority to try and resolve cases arising from overseas employment contract. Invoking this Court's ruling in Briad Agro Developinent Corp. vs. Dela Cerna,[8] petitioner argues that E.O. No. 797 applies retroactively to affect pending cases, including the complaint filed by private respondent. The petition is devoid of merit. The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action.[9] On March 31, 1982, at the time private respondent filed his complaint against the petitioner, the prevailing laws were Presidential Decree No. 1691[10] and Presidential Decree No. 1391[11] which vested the Regional Offices of the Ministry of Labor and the Labor Arbiters with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving employer-employee relations including money claims arising out of any law or contracts involving Filipino workers for overseas employment."[12] At the time of the filing of the complaint, the Labor Arbiter had clear jurisdiction over the same. E.O. No. 797 did not divest the Labor Arbiter's authority to hear and decide the case filed by private respondent prior to its effectivity. Laws should only be applied prospectively unless the legislative intent to give them retroactive effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used.[13] We fail to perceive in the language of E.O. No. 797 an intention to give it retroactive effect. The case of Briad Agro Development Corp. vs. Dela Cerna[14] cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the case at bar. In Briad, the Court applied the exception rather than the general rule. In this case, Briad Agro Development Corp. and L.M. Camus Engineering Corp. challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment over cases involving workers' money claims, since Article 217 of the Labor Code, the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint, vested in the Labor Arbiters exclusive jurisdiction over such cases. The Court dismissed the petition in its Decision dated June 29, 1989.[15] It ruled that the enactment of E.O. No. 111, amending Article 217 of the Labor Code, cured the Regional Director's lack of jurisdiction by giving the Labor Arbiter and the Regional Director concurrent jurisdiction over all cases involving money claims. However, on November 9,1989, the Court, in a Resolution,[16] reconsidered and set aside its June 29 Decision elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33758 3/7