- NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. V. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, G.R. NO. 54204, SEPT.
30, 1982
DOCTRINE:
An administrative or quasi-judicial body may take judicial notice of and apply a foreign law without proof if it has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the cases involving such law, and if it is familiar with the pertinent foreign maritime laws relative to the
subject matter of the case. The rule that a foreign law must be alleged and proved as a matter of evidence does not apply strictly to
administrative proceedings, where technical rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed
SYNOPSIS:
FACTS:
Petitioner, Norse Management Co(Norse) and Pacific SeamenServices, Inc. (Pacific) are petitioners who are engaged in theshipping
business in Singaporeand the Philippines, respectively.
Napoleon B. Abordo, the deceased husband of private respondent RESTITUTA C. ABORDO, was the Second Engineer of M.T.
"Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the course of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY (PTE). The M.T. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean Registry.
Respondent filed a complaint for "death compensation benefits, accrued leave pay and time-off allowances, funeral expenses,
attorney's fees and other benefits and reliefs available in connection with the death of Napoleon B. Abordo ," filed before the
National Seamen Board.
Restituta C. Abordo alleged that the amount of compensation due her from petitioners Norse Management Co. (PTE) and Pacific
Seamen Services, Inc., principal and agent, respectively, should be based on the law where the vessel is registered.
On the other hand, petitioners contend that the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National Seamen
Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's Insurance Law of Singapore. As an alternative, they offered to pay private
respondent Restituta C. Abordo the sum of P30,000.00 as death benefits based on the BOARD'S MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR
NO. 25 which they claim should apply in this case.
NSB: ruled in favor of private respondent, and Applied Singapore Law, ordered petitioners to pay $34,210.00 representing death
benefits, funeral expenses and attorney's fees.
It is true that the law of Singapore was not alleged and proved in the course of the hearing. And following Supreme Court
decisions in a long line of cases that a foreign law, being a matter of evidence, must be alleged and proved, the law of
Singapore ought not to be recognized in this case.
However, the jurisprudence on this matter was never meant to apply to cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies
such as the National Seamen Board.
For well-settled also is the rule that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not bound strictly by technical rules.
It has always been the policy of this Board, as enunciated in a long line of cases, that in cases of valid claims for benefits on
account of injury or death while in the course of employment, the law of the country in which the vessel is registered shall
be considered
There is no reason to deviate from this well-considered policy. Certainly not on technical grounds as movants herein would like
us to.
ISSUE:
Whether the law of Singapore ought to be applied in this case.
RULING:
YES. The "Employment Agreement" between petitioners and the late Napoleon B. Abordo, it is clear that compensation shall be
paid under Philippine Law or the law of registry of petitioners' vessel, whichever is greater. Since private respondent Restituta C.
Abordo was offered P30,000.00 only by the petitioners, Singapore law was properly applied in this case.
Furthermore, Article 20, Labor Code of the Philippines, provides that the National Seamen Board has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters or cases including money claims, involving employer-employee relations, arising out of or by virtue
of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for overseas employmen t. Thus, it is safe to assume that the Board is familiar
with pertinent Singapore maritime laws relative to workmen's compensation.
Moreover, the Board may apply the rule on judicial notice and, "in administrative proceedings, the technical rules of procedure
— particularly of evidence — applied in judicial trials, do not strictly apply.
Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code,
including its implementing rules and resolved in favor of labor.
The "Employment Agreement" is attached to the Supplemental Complaint of Restituta C. Abordo and, therefore, it forms part
thereof. As it is familiar with Singapore Law, the National Seamen Board is justified in taking judicial notice of and in applying
that law.
