VOL.
166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 533
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
*
No. L-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.
Labor; Overseas Employment; Appeals; Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, proper; General
rule that decisions of the POEA should first be appealed to the NLRC; Case at bar comes under one of the
exceptions, as the questions raised are questions of law; Absence of objection by private respondent to
petitioner’s direct resort to the Supreme Court.—Ordinarily, the decisions of the POEA should first be
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, on the theory inter alia that the agency should be
given an opportunity to correct the errors, if any, of its subordinates. This case comes under one of the
exceptions, however, as the questions the petitioner is raising are essentially questions of law. Moreover,
the private respondent herself has not objected to the petitioner’s direct resort to this Court, observing
that the usual procedure would delay the disposition of the case to her prejudice.
Same; Same; Overseas employment and contract worker, defined; These definitions clearly apply to
the employee as he died under a contract of employment with petitioner alongside petitioner’s vessel
berthed in a foreign country.—Under the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, overseas
employment is defined as “employment of a worker outside the Philippines, including employment on
board vessels plying international waters, covered by a valid contract.” A contract worker is described as
“any person working or who has worked overseas under a valid employment contract and shall include
seamen” or “any person working overseas or who has been employed by another which may be a local
employer, foreign employer, principal or partner under a valid employment contract and shall include
seamen.” 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, the M/V Eastern
Polaris, while berthed in a foreign country.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
534
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
Same; Same; Same; Submission by petitioner of shipping articles to POEA and payments of
contributions to the Welfare Fund are tacit recognition of the nature of the employee’s appointment at the
time of his death.—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. The first
is its submission of its shipping articles to the POEA for processing, formalization and approval in the
exercise of its regulatory power over overseas employment under Executive Order No. 797. The second is
its payment of the contributions mandated by law and regulations to the Welfare Fund for Overseas
Workers, which was created by P.D. No. 1694 “for the purpose of providing social and welfare services to
Filipino overseas workers.”
Same; Same; Receipt prepared by the office administering the Welfare Fund described the subject of
burial benefits as an overseas contract worker.—Significantly, the office administering this fund, in the
receipt it prepared for the private respondent’s signature, described the subject of the burial benefits as
“overseas contract worker Vitaliano Saco.” While this receipt is certainly not controlling, it does indicate,
in the light of the petitioner’s own previous acts, that the petitioner and the Fund to which it had made
contributions considered Saco to be an overseas employee.
Same; Same; Award of death benefits and burial expenses under Memorandum Circular of the
POEA.; Circular prescribing a standard contract by foreign and domestic shipping companies deemed
written into the contract with the employee and a postulate of the police power of the State.—The award of
P180,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses was made by the POEA pursuant to
its Memorandum Circular No. 2, which became effective on February 1, 1984. 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. A similar contract had earlier been required by the National
Seamen Board and had been sustained in a number of cases by this Court. The petitioner claims that it
had never entered into such a contract with the deceased Saco, but that is hardly a serious argument. In
the first place, it should have done so as required by the circular, 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.” In the second place, even if it had not done so, the provisions
of the said
535
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 535
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
circular are nevertheless deemed written into the contract with Saco as a postulate of the police
power of the State.
Same; Same; Delegation of power; 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.—
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, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative
of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.
Same; Same; Same; Accepted tests to determine whether or not there is valid delegation of legislative
power.—There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of
legislative power, viz., the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, 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. Under the sufficient standard test,
there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total
transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the
legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.
Same; Same; Same; Principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the 3 major powers of
the government, but is especially important in the case of the legislative power.—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 instances when its delegation is
permitted. The occasions are rare when executive or judicial powers have to be delegated by the
authorities to which they legally pertain. In the case of the legislative power, however, such occasions
have become more and more frequent, if not necessary. This had led to the observation that the
delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception.
Same; Same; Same; Reason for the frequent delegation of power by the legislature.—The reason is the
increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing inability of the legislature to
536
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified
its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected
reasonably to comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. To many of the
problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to
provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These solutions may, however,
be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned to them.
Same; Same; Same; Reasons for delegation of legislative powers are particularly applicable to
administrative bodies; Delegated power to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute is
called power of subordinate legislation.—The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers
in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized
activities and their attendant peculiar problems, 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. This is called the “power of subordinate legisla-tion.”
Same; Same; Same; Administrative bodies implement the broad policies by promulgating their
supplemental regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new
Labor Code.—With this power, 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. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations, such as
the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations
have the force and effect of “law.
Same; Same; Same; Memorandum Circular No. 2 which prescribes a model contract is not challenged
by the employer.—Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation. The model
contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of cases without challenge by the
employer. 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. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which, in creating the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to
“fair and
537
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 537
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
equitable employment practices.”
Same; Same; Same; Sufficient standards of delegation of legislative power.—Parenthetically, it is
recalled that this Court has accepted as sufficient standards “public interest” in People v. Rosenthal,
“justice and equity” in Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR, “public convenience and welfare” in Calalang v.
Williams, and “simplicity, economy and efficiency” in Cervantes v. Auditor General, to mention only a
few cases. In the United States, the “sense and experience of men” was accepted in Mutual Film Corp. v.
Industrial Commission, and “national security” in Hirabayashi v. United States.
Same; Same; Same; Payment of death benefit pension, funeral benefit burial gratuity to private
respondent will not preclude allowance of private respondent’s claim against petitioner which is
specifically reserved in the standard contract of employment for Filipino seamen.—It is not denied that
the private respondent has been receiving a monthly death benefit pension of P514.42 since March 1985
and that she was also paid of P1,000.00 funeral benefit by the Social Security System. In addition, as
already observed, she also received a P5,000.00 burial gratuity from the Welfare Fund for Overseas
Workers. 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. 2, Series of 1984.
Same; Same; Same; Provisions under the standard contract of employment for Filipino seamen
pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 2 are manifestations of the State for the working class consistently
with the social justice and protection of the working class provisions of the Constitution.—The above
provisions are manifestations of the concern of the State for the working class, consistently with the
social justice policy and the specific provisions in the Constitution calling for the protection of the
working class and the promotion of its interest.
Same; Same; Same; Due process, not a case of; Administrative agencies vested with two basic powers,
quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial; Power of administrative agencies to promulgate implementing rules
and regulations and interprets and applies them, not violative of due process as long as the cardinal
rights in the Ang Tibay vs. CIR case are observed.—One last challenge of the petitioner must be dealt
with to close this case. Its argument that it has been denied due process because the same POEA that
issued Memorandum Circular
538
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
No. 2 has also sustained and applied it is an uninformed criticism of administrative law itself.
Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers, the quasi-legislative and the quasi-judicial.
The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations, and the second enables them
to interpret and apply such regulations. Examples abound: the Bureau of Internal Revenue adjudicates
on its own revenue regulations, the Central Bank on its own circulars, the Securities and Exchange
Commission on its own rules, as so too do the Philippine Patent Office and the Videogram Regulatory
Board and Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Department of Natural Resources and so on ad
infinitum on their respective administrative regulations. 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. Court of Industrial
Relations are observed.
Same; Same; Same; Doubts regarding the rights of the parties are resolved in favor of private
respondent under the principle that those with less in life should have more in law.—Whatever doubts
may still remain regarding the rights of the parties in this case are resolved in favor of the private
respondent, in line with the express mandate of the Labor Code and the principle that those with less in
life should have more in law.
Same; Same; Same; When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of
social justice, capital should be counterbalanced with sympathy and compassion the law must accord to
labor.—When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social justice, the
heavier influence of the latter must be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must
accord the underprivileged worker. 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, with which he can
negotiate on even plane. Labor is not a mere employee of capital but its active and equal partner.
PETITION to review the decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jimenea, Dala & Zaragoza Law Office for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Dizon Law Office for respondent Kathleen D. Saco.
539
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 539
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
CRUZ, J.:
The private respondent in this case was awarded the sum of P192,000.00 by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for the death of her husband. The decision is
challenged by the petitioner on the principal ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over
the case as the husband was not an overseas worker.
Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an
accident in Tokyo, Japan, March 15, 1985. His widow sued for damages under Executive Order
No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 of the POEA. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel,
argued that the complaint was cognizable not by the POEA but by the Social Security System
and should have been filed against the State Insurance Fund. The POEA nevertheless
assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of
the complainant. The award consisted of P180,000.00 as death benefits and P12,000.00 for
burial expenses.
The petitioner immediately came to this Court, prompting the Solicitor General to move for
dismissal on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Ordinarily, the decisions of the POEA should first be appealed to the National Labor
Relations Commission, on the theory inter alia that the agency should be given an opportunity
to correct the errors, if any, of its subordinates. This case comes under one of the 1exceptions,
however, as the questions the petitioner is raising are essentially questions of law. Moreover,
the private respondent himself has not objected to the petitioner’s direct resort to this Court,
observing that the usual procedure would delay the disposition of the case to her prejudice.
The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created under Executive Order
No. 797, promulgated on May
_______________
1 Bagatsing v. Ramirez, 74 SCRA 306, Del Mar v. Phil. Veterans
Administration, 51 SCRA 340; Aguilar v. Valencia, 40 SCRA 210;Begosa v. PVA, 32 SCRA 446; Tapales v. President
and Board of Regents, 7 SCRA 553; Pascual v. Nueva Ecija Provincial Board, 106 Phil. 466; Mondano v. Silvosa, 97
Phil. 143.
540
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
1, 1982, to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their
rights. It replaced the National Seamen Board created earlier under Article 20 of the Labor
Code in 1974. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order, the POEA is vested with “original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving employee-employer
relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino contract workers,
including seamen.” These cases, according to the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas
Employment issued by the POEA, include “claims for death, disability and other benefits”
arising out of 2
such employment.
The petitioner does not contend that Saco was not its employee or that the claim of his
widow is not compensable. 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, subject to appeal to the Employees Compensation Commission.
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.
Under the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment, overseas employment is
defined as “employment of a worker outside the Philippines, including 3
employment on board
vessels plying international waters, covered by a valid contract.” A contract worker is
described as “any person working or4 who has worked overseas under a valid employment
contract and shall include seamen” or “any person working overseas or who has been
employed by another which may be a local employer, foreign5 employer, principal or partner
under a valid employment contract and shall include seamen.” These definitions clearly apply
to Vitaliano Saco for it is not disputed that he died while under a contract of employment with
the petitioner and6 alongside the petitioner’s vessel, the M/V Eastern Polaris, while berthed in
a foreign country.
_______________
2 Sec. 1(d), Rule I, Book VI (1985 Rules).
3 Sec. 1(x), Rule II, Book I (1985 Rules).
4 Sec. 1(g), Rule II, Book I (1985 Rules).
5 Sec. 1(g), Rule II, Book I (1984 Rules).
6 Rollo, p. 171 (POEA Decision, p. 8).
541
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 541
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
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. The
first is its submission of its shipping articles to the POEA for processing, formalization and
approval in the 7exercise of its regulatory power8
over overseas employment under Executive
Order NO. 797. The second is its payment of the contributions mandated by law and
regulations to the Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers, which was created by P.D. No. 1694
“for the purpose of providing social and welfare services to Filipino overseas workers.”
Significantly, the office administering this fund, in the receipt it prepared for the private
respondent’s signature,9 described the subject of the burial benefits as “overseas contract
worker Vitaliano Saco.” While this receipt is certainly not controlling, it does indicate, in the
light of the petitioner’s own previous acts, that the petitioner and the Fund to which it had
made contributions considered Saco to be an overseas employee.
The petitioner argues that the deceased employee should be likened to the employees of the
Philippine Air Lines who, although working abroad in its international flights, are not
considered overseas workers. If this be so, the petitioner should not have found it necessary to
submit its shipping articles to the POEA for processing, formalization and approval or to
contribute to the Welfare Fund which is available only to overseas workers. Moreover, 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.
The award of P180,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses was made
by the POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. 2, which became effective on
February 1, 1984. 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. A
_______________
7 Ibid., pp.
169-170 (POEA Decision, pp. 6-7).
8 Rollo,
pp. 213-217.
9 Annex “A” of Private Respondent’s Comment (Rollo, p. 230).
542
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
similar contract had earlier been required 10by the National Seamen Board and had been
sustained in a number of cases by this Court. The petitioner claims that it had never entered
into such a contract with the deceased Saco, but that is hardly a serious argument. In the first
place, it should have done so as required by the circular, 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.” In the second place, even if it
had not done so, the provisions of the said circular are nevertheless
11
deemed written into the
contract with Saco as a postulate of the police power of the State.
But the petitioner questions the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself as violative
of the principle of non-delega-tion of legislative power. It contends that no authority had been
given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation; and even with such authorization, the
regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which, under the principle, is not
subject to delegation.
The authority to issue the said regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive
Order No. 797, reading as follows:
“x x x The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as hereunder provided, shall promulgate the
necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the
Administration (POEA).”
Similar authorization had been granted the National Seamen Board, which, as earner
observed, had itself prescribed a standard shipping contract substantially the same as the
format adopted by the POEA.
The second challenge is more serious as it is true that legislative discretion as to the
substantive contents of the law cannot
_______________
10 Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corp. v. NLRC, 135 SCRA 278; Virgen v. NLRC, 125 SCRA 577; Norse Management
v. NSB, et al., 117 SCRA 486; Vir-gen v. NLRC, 115 SCRA 347.
11 Stone v. Mississippi, 101 US 814.
543
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 543
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be
enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of
the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or12 surrendered by the legislature to the
delegate. Thus, in Ynot v. Intermediate Apellate Court, which annulled Executive Order No.
626, this Court held:
“We also mark, on top of all this, the questionable manner of the disposition of the confiscated property
as prescribed in the questioned executive order. 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, in the case of carabaos.’ (Italics supplied.) The phrase ‘may see
fit’ is an extremely generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous
opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard
and the reasonable guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when
they make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. 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, they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their
own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is here a ‘roving commission,’ a wide and sweeping authority
that is not ‘canal-ized within banks that keep it from overflowing,’ in short a clearly profligate and
therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.”
There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of
legislative power, viz, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first
test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
13
such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it. Under
the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
map14out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running
riot.
_______________
12 148 SCRA 659.
13 Peoplev. Vera, 65 Phil. 56.
14 Cervantes v. Auditor General, 91 Phil. 359; People v. Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328.
544
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate,
who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially
legislative.
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 instances when its delegation is permitted. The occasions are rare when executive or
judicial powers have to be delegated by the authorities to which they legally pertain. In the
case of the legislative power, however, such occasions have become more and more frequent, if
not necessary. This had led to the observation that the delegation of legislative power has
become the rule and its non-delegation the exception.
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. The
growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems
that the legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization even in
legislation has become necessary. To many of the problems attendant upon present-day
undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and
efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its
delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned to them.
The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly
applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their
attendant peculiar problems, 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. This is called the “power of subordinate legislation.”
With this power, 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. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as
supplementary regulations, such as the imple-
545
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 545
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
menting rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations
have the force and effect of law.
Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation. The model contract
prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by
the employer. 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. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself
which, in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, mandated it to
protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to “fair and equitable employment practices.”
Parenthetically, it is recalled15that this Court has accepted as sufficient standards16 “public
interest” in People v. Rosenthal, “justice and equity”
17
in Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR, “public
convenience and welfare” in Calalang
18
v. Williams, and “simplicity, economy and efficiency” in
Cervantes v. Auditor General, to mention only a few cases. In the United States, the “sense19
and experience of men” was accepted in Mutual Film 20
Corp. v. Industrial Commission, and
“national security” in Hirabayashi v. United States.
It is not denied that the private respondent has been receiving a monthly death benefit
pension of P514.42 since March 1985 and that she was also paid a P1,000.00 funeral benefit by
the Social Security System. In addition, as already observed, she also received a P5,000.00
burial gratuity from the Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers. 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. 2, Series of 1984, that—
_______________
15 Supra.
16 70Phil. 340.
17 70Phil. 726.
18 Supra.
19 236 U.S. 247.
20 320 U.S. 99.
546
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
“Section C. Compensation and Benefits.—
“1. In case of death of the seamen dialing the term of his Contract, the employer shall pay his
beneficiaries the amount of:
“a. P220,000.00 for master and chief engineers
“b. P180,000.00 for other officers, including radio operators and master electricians
“c. P130,000.00 for ratings.
“2. It is understood and agreed that the benefits mentioned above shall be separate and distinct from,
and will be in addition to whatever benefits which the seaman is entitled to under Philippine
laws. x x x x.
“3. x x x
“c. If the remains of the seaman is buried in the Philippines, the owners shall pay the beneficiaries of the seaman an
amount not exceeding P18,000.00 for burial expenses.”
The underscored portion is merely a reiteration of Memorandum Circular No. 22, issued by the
National Seamen Board on July 12, 1976, providing as follows:
“Income Benefits under this Rule Shall be Considered Additional Benefits.—
“All compensation benefits under Title II, Book Four of the Labor Code of the Philippines (Employees
Compensation and State Insurance Fund) shall be granted, in addition to whatever benefits, gratuities or
allowances that the seaman or his beneficiaries may be entitled to under the employment contract
approved by the NSB. If applicable, 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.”
The above provisions are manifestations of the concern of the State for the working class,
consistently with the social justice policy and the specific provisions in the Constitution calling
for the protection of the working class and the promotion of its interest.
One last challenge of the petitioner must be dealt with to close this case. Its argument that
it has been denied due process because the same POEA that issued Memorandum Circular No.
2 has also sustained and applied it is an uninformed criticism of administrative law itself.
Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers, the quasi-legisla-
547
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 18, 1988 547
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
tive and the quasi-judicial. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and
regulations, and the second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations. Examples
abound: the Bureau of Internal Revenue adjudicates on its own revenue regulations, the
Central Bank on its own circulars, the Securities and Exchange Commission on its own rules,
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
infinitum on their respective administrative regulations. 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 21laid down by Justice Laurel in the landmark case of Ang
Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations are observed.
Whatever doubts may still remain regarding the rights of the parties in this case are
resolved in favor of the private respondent, in line with the express mandate of the Labor Code
and the principle that those with less in life should have more in law.
When the conflicting interests of labor and capital are weighed on the scales of social
justice, the heavier influence of the latter must be counterbalanced by the sympathy and
compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. 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, with which he can negotiate on even plane. Labor is not a mere
employee of capital but its active and equal partner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. The
temporary restraining order dated December 10, 1986 is hereby LIFTED. It is so ordered.
Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Petition, dismissed.
_______________
21 69 Phil. 635.
548
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Zoleta vs. Drilon
Notes.—View that an administrative regulation improperly delegated is null and void.
However, it may be considered as expressing the executive view which is entitled to great
respect. (National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. Ovejera, 114 SCRA 354.)
Administrative agencies may not disregard the essential requirements of due process (New
Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Rivera, 83 SCRA 602.)
——o0o——
