Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/120729845/Eastern-Shipping-Lines-vs-POEA
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:21:48+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988 EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA), MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL BASAR and KATHLEEN D. SACO, respondents. Jimenea, Dala & Zaragoza Law Office for petitioner. The Solicitor General for public respondent. Dizon Law Office for respondent Kathleen D. Saco.
" 9 While this receipt is certainly not controlling. subject to appeal to the Employees Compensation Commission. which was created by P. 1984. in the light of the petitioner's own previous acts. covered by a valid contract. A similar contract had earlier been required by the National Seamen Board and had been sustained in a number of cases by this Court. formalization and approval or to contribute to the Welfare Fund which is available only to overseas workers. If this be so. The first is its submission of its shipping articles to the POEA for processing. What it does urge is that he was not an overseas worker but a 'domestic employee and consequently his widow's claim should have been filed with Social Security System.00 for burial expenses was made by the POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. the M/V Eastern Polaris.000.000. 797. the provisions of the said circular are nevertheless deemed written into the contract with Saco as a postulate of the police power of the State.00 for death benefits and P12.D. even if it had not done so. in the receipt it prepared for the private respondent's signature. Moreover. In the first place. but that is hardly a serious argument. described the subject of the burial benefits as "overseas contract worker Vitaliano Saco. overseas employment is defined as "employment of a worker outside the Philippines. 3 A contract worker is described as "any person working or who has worked overseas under a valid employment contract and shall include seamen" 4 or "any person working overseas or who has been employed by another which may be a local employer. it should have done so as required by the circular." Significantly. although working abroad in its international flights. 2. the petitioner should not have found it necessary to submit its shipping articles to the POEA for processing. Under the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment. which became effective on February 1. including employment on board vessels plying international waters. the analogy is hardly appropriate as the employees of the PAL cannot under the definitions given be considered seamen nor are their appointments coursed through the POEA. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment. principal or partner under a valid employment contract and shall include seamen. We see no reason to disturb the factual finding of the POEA that Vitaliano Saco was an overseas employee of the petitioner at the time he met with the fatal accident in Japan in 1985. 11 . the office administering this fund.The petitioner does not contend that Saco was not its employee or that the claim of his widow is not compensable." In the second place. 6 It is worth observing that the petitioner performed at least two acts which constitute implied or tacit recognition of the nature of Saco's employment at the time of his death in 1985. 1694 "for the purpose of providing social and welfare services to Filipino overseas workers. foreign employer. that the petitioner and the Fund to which it had made contributions considered Saco to be an overseas employee. No. The award of P180. it does indicate. 7 The second is its payment 8 of the contributions mandated by law and regulations to the Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers. The petitioner argues that the deceased employee should be likened to the employees of the Philippine Air Lines who. are not considered overseas workers. while berthed in a foreign country." 5 These definitions clearly apply to Vitaliano Saco for it is not disputed that he died while under a contract of employment with the petitioner and alongside the petitioner's vessel. which specifically declared that "all parties to the employment of any Filipino seamen on board any ocean-going vessel are advised to adopt and use this employment contract effective 01 February 1984 and to desist from using any other format of employment contract effective that date. formalization and approval in the exercise of its regulatory power over overseas employment under Executive Order NO. 10 The petitioner claims that it had never entered into such a contract with the deceased Saco.
as earlier observed. It is there authorized that the seized property shall be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit. and in their own exclusive discretion. The authority to issue the said regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power. reading as follows: . Their options are apparently boundless. Intermediate Apellate Court 12 which annulled Executive Order No. Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer. 626. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines. had itself prescribed a standard shipping contract substantially the same as the format adopted by the POEA.) The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it. in the case of carabaos. on top of all this. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature.' in short a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.But the petitioner questions the validity of Memorandum Circular No. which. The second challenge is more serious as it is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced. Definitely. Under the first test. 2 itself as violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Similar authorization had been granted the National Seamen Board. they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit.. 13 Under the sufficient standard test. and even with such authorization. the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which. the limitations that the officers must observe when they make their distribution. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse. and even corruption. is not subject to delegation. 14 Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate. notwhat the law shall be. or better still. there is here a 'roving commission a wide and sweeping authority that is not canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing. There is none. viz. 797.' (Italics supplied. as hereunder provided shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration (POEA). if condition it is. The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the Government but is especially important in the case of the legislative power because of the many . The governing Board of the Administration (POEA). in Ynot v. under the principle. the questionable manner of the disposition of the confiscated property as prescribed in the questioned executive order. the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Thus.. who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. this Court held: We also mark. It contends that no authority had been given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation.
In the United States.instances when its delegation is permitted.42 since March 1985 and that she was also paid a P1. 2. administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in' the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.— .000. in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. 19 and "national security" in Hirabayashi v. such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. Industrial Commission. Series of 1984. who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned to them. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which." Parenthetically. The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. 20 It is not denied that the private respondent has been receiving a monthly death benefit pension of P514. CIR 16 "public convenience and welfare" in Calalang v. These payments will not preclude allowance of the private respondent's claim against the petitioner because it is specifically reserved in the standard contract of employment for Filipino seamen under Memorandum Circular No. In addition. 2 is one such administrative regulation. The occasions are rare when executive or judicial powers have to be delegated by the authorities to which they legally certain. be expected from its delegates. the "sense and experience of men" was accepted in Mutual Film Corp. Compensation and Benefits. however. The growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend.00 funeral benefit by the Social Security System. These regulations have the force and effect of law. The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by the employer. United States. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems. Williams 17 and "simplicity. To many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings. The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. These solutions may. The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. Rosenthal 15 "justice and equity" in Antamok Gold Fields v.000. specific solutions. economy and efficiency" in Cervantes v. she also received a P5. not to say. such occasions have become more and more frequent. In the case of the legislative power. as already observed. the national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. v. Memorandum Circular No. 18 to mention only a few cases. it is recalled that this Court has accepted as sufficient standards "Public interest" in People v." With this power. This had led to the observation that the delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its nondelegation the exception. mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices. if not necessary. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary.00 burial gratuity from the Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers. This is called the "power of subordinate legislation. however. that— Section C. the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious. Auditor General.
22. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations. the owners shall pay the beneficiaries of the seaman an amount not exceeding P18. P180. Such an arrangement has been accepted as a fact of life of modern governments and cannot be considered violative of due process as long as the cardinal rights laid down by Justice Laurel in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. in addition to whatever benefits.000. c.1976. all benefits under the Social Security Law and the Philippine Medicare Law shall be enjoyed by the seaman or his beneficiaries in accordance with such laws. and the second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations. The above provisions are manifestations of the concern of the State for the working class. the Securities and Exchange Commission on its own rules. and will be in addition to whatever benefits which the seaman is entitled to under Philippine laws. the employer shall pay his beneficiaries the amount of: a. consistently with the social justice policy and the specific provisions in the Constitution for the protection of the working class and the promotion of its interest. The underscored portion is merely a reiteration of Memorandum Circular No. Examples abound: the Bureau of Internal Revenue adjudicates on its own revenue regulations.000.000.00 for burial expenses.000. Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers. as so too do the Philippine Patent Office and the Videogram Regulatory Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Department of Natural Resources and so on ad infinitumon their respective administrative regulations.00 for ratings.. If applicable.00 for other officers. Its argument that it has been denied due process because the same POEA that issued Memorandum Circular No. If the remains of the seaman is buried in the Philippines. . Book Four of the Labor Code of the Philippines (Employees Compensation and State Insurance Fund) shall be granted.1. 3. One last challenge of the petitioner must be dealt with to close t case. P 130. the quasi-legislative and the quasi-judicial. Court of Industrial Relations 21 are observed.— All compensation benefits under Title II. 2.. issued by the National Seamen Board on July 12. In case of death of the seamen during the term of his Contract.00 for master and chief engineers b.. It is understood and agreed that the benefits mentioned above shall be separate and distinct from. 2 has also sustained and applied it is an uninformed criticism of administrative law itself. P220.. . gratuities or allowances that the seaman or his beneficiaries may be entitled to under the employment contract approved by the NSB. providing an follows: Income Benefits under this Rule Shall be Considered Additional Benefits. the Central Bank on its own circulars. . including radio operators and master electrician c.
1986 is hereby LIFTED. Griño-Aquino and Medialdea. with which he can negotiate on even plane. with costs against the petitioner. Gancayco. concur. JJ. . Narvasa. the heavier influence of the latter must be counter-balanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. It is so ordered. the petition is DISMISSED. When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice. This is only fair if he is to be given the opportunity and the right to assert and defend his cause not as a subordinate but as a peer of management..Whatever doubts may still remain regarding the rights of the parties in this case are resolved in favor of the private respondent. The temporary restraining order dated December 10. Labor is not a mere employee of capital but its active and equal partner. in line with the express mandate of the Labor Code and the principle that those with less in life should have more in law. WHEREFORE.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.