6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Administration [POEA], 200 SCRA 663 [1991]). This development showed the legislative authority's continuing intent to exclude from the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction claims arising from overseas employment. These amendments notwithstanding, when the complaint for illegal dismissal was filed on January 31, 1979, under Art. 15, as amended by P.D. No. 1412, it was the Bureau of Employment Services which had jurisdiction over the case and not the Labor Arbiters. It is a settled rule that jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action (Municipality of Sogod v. Rosal, 201 SCRA 632, 637 [1991]). P.D. 1691 which gave the regional offices of the Ministry of Labor concurrent jurisdiction with the Bureau of Employment Services, was promulgated more than a year after the complaint was filed. (Italics supplied) In sum, we hold that respondent NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the jurisdiction of respondent Labor Arbiter over the complaint filed by private respondent against the petitioner. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Petition is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Regalado (Chairman), Romero, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. [1] Docketed as NLRC-NCR-3-3142-82. [2] Official Gazette, Vol. 78, No. 21, May 24, 1982, pp. 2368-7 - 2638-13. [3] Rollo, pp. 13-23. [4] Rollo, p. 23. [5] Rollo, pp. 26-30. [6] Rollo, p. 28. [7] Rollo, p. 7. [8] 179 SCRA 269, November 9, 1989. [9] Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 197 (1992). [10] Took effect on May 1, 1980. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33758 6/7