8/12/2019 Eastern Shipping Lines Inc vs Poea

1/2

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC, VS. POEA

FACTS: The private respondent in this case was awarded the sum of P192,000.00 by the PhilippineOverseas Employment dministration !POE" for the death of her husband. The decision is challen#ed

by the petitioner on the principal #round that the POE had no $urisdiction over the case as the husband

was not an overseas wor%er.

&italiano 'aco was (hief Officer of the )*& Eastern Polaris when he was %illed in an accident

in To%yo, +apan. is widow sued for dama#es under E-ecutive Order o. /9/ and )emorandum(ircular o. 2 of the POE. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, ar#ued that the complaint was

co#niable not by the POE but by the 'ocial 'ecurity 'ystem and should have been filed a#ainst the

'tate nsurance und. The POE nevertheless assumed $urisdiction and after considerin# the positionpapers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. The award consisted of P130,000.00 as death

benefits and P12,000.00 for burial e-penses. The petitioner immediately came to this (ourt, promptin#

the 'olicitor 4eneral to move for dismissal on the #round of non5e-haustion of administrative

remedies.

The award of P130,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial e-penses was made by

the POE pursuant to its )emorandum (ircular o. 2, which became effective on ebruary 1, 1936.This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both forei#n and domestic shippin#

companies in the hirin# of ilipino seamen for overseas employment. similar contract had earlier

been re7uired by the ational 'eamen 8oard and had been sustained in a number of cases by this(ourt. The petitioner claims that it had never entered into such a contract with the deceased 'aco, but

that is hardly a serious ar#ument. n the first place, it should have done so as re7uired by the circular,

which specifically declared that all parties to the employment of any ilipino seamen on board any

ocean5#oin# vessel are advised to adopt and use this employment contract effective 01 ebruary 1936and to desist from usin# any other format of employment contract effective that date. n the second

place, even if it had not done so, the provisions of the said circular are nevertheless deemed written into

the contract with 'aco as a postulate of the police power of the 'tate. Petitioner 7uestions the validityof )emorandum (ircular o. 2 itself as violative of the principle of non5dele#ation of le#islative

power. t contends that no authority had been #iven the POE to promul#ate the said re#ulation: and

even with such authoriation, the re#ulation represents an e-ercise of le#islative discretion which,under the principle, is not sub$ect to dele#ation.

ISSUE: ;hether or not POE has $urisdiction over the case.

HELD: The authority to issue the said re#ulation is clearly provided in 'ection 6!a" of E-ecutive Order

o. /9/, readin# as follows =nder the sufficient standard test, there must

be ade7uate #uidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the dele#ate?s authority andprevent the dele#ation from runnin# riot.

8oth tests are intended to prevent a total transference of le#islative authority to the dele#ate,who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the le#islature and e-ercise a power essentially le#islative.

The principle of non5dele#ation of powers is applicable to all the three ma$or powers of the

4overnment but is especially important in the case of the le#islative power because of the manyinstances when its dele#ation is permitted. The occasions are rare when e-ecutive or $udicial powers

have to be dele#ated by the authorities to which they le#ally certain. n the case of the le#islative

power, however, such occasions have become more and more fre7uent, if not necessary. This had led to

the observation that the dele#ation of le#islative power has become the rule and its non5dele#ation thee-ception.

;ith the proliferation of specialied activities and their attendant peculiar problems, thenational le#islature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative a#encies the

authority to issue rules to carry out the #eneral provisions of the statute. This is called the power of

subordinate le#islation. ;ith this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laiddown in a statute by fillin# in? the details which the (on#ress may not have the opportunity or

competence to provide. This is effected by their promul#ation of what are %nown as supplementary

re#ulations, such as the implementin# rules issued by the @epartment of Aabor on the new Aabor (ode.

These re#ulations have the force and effect of law.

)emorandum (ircular o. 2 is one such administrative re#ulation. The model contract

prescribed thereby has been applied in a si#nificant number of the cases without challen#e by theemployer. The power of the POE !and before it the ational 'eamen 8oard" in re7uirin# the model

contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard #uidin# the dele#ate in the e-ercise of the said

authority. That standard is discoverable in the e-ecutive order itself which, in creatin# the PhilippineOverseas Employment dministration, mandated it to protect the ri#hts of overseas ilipino wor%ers to

fair and e7uitable employment practices.

One last challen#e of the petitioner must be dealt with to close t case. ts ar#ument that it has

been denied due process because the same POE that issued )emorandum (ircular o. 2 has also

sustained and applied it is an uninformed criticism of administrative law itself. dministrative a#encies

are vested with two basic powers, the 7uasi5le#islative and the 7uasi5$udicial. The first enables them topromul#ate implementin# rules and re#ulations, and the second enables them to interpret and apply

such re#ulations. E-amples abound< the 8ureau of nternal Bevenue ad$udicates on its own revenue

re#ulations, the (entral 8an% on its own circulars, the 'ecurities and E-chan#e (ommission on its ownrules, as so too do the Philippine Patent Office and the &ideo#ram Be#ulatory 8oard and the (ivil

eronautics dministration and the @epartment of atural Besources and so on ad infinitumon their

respective administrative re#ulations. 'uch an arran#ement has been accepted as a fact of life ofmodern #overnments and cannot be considered violative of due process as lon# as the cardinal ri#hts

laid down by +ustice Aaurel in the landmar% case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations are

observed.Thus, petition is dismissed, with costs a#ainst the petitioner.