Title
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
Case
G.R. No. 77828
Decision Date
Feb 8, 1989
A widow sought death benefits under NSB Circular No. 71 after her husband, a seaman, died aboard a foreign-registered vessel. The Supreme Court upheld POEA's jurisdiction, affirmed the Circular's validity, and ruled the employer liable for P100,000 in benefits.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 77828)

Facts:

  • Parties and Employment Background
    • Petitioner: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. (“Eastern”), a shipping company engaged in operating ocean-going vessels.
    • Private Respondent: Ma. Lourdes A. Zaragoza, the widow of Manuel Zaragoza, who was an employee of Eastern.
    • Employment Relationship:
      • Manuel Zaragoza had been employed by Eastern since 1973, serving as an engineer and later as Chief Engineer.
      • At the time of his death, he was serving on board the M/V Eastern Meteor.
  • Circumstances of Death
    • Date and Place of Death:
      • Manuel Zaragoza died on 18 September 1983 while in Kakogawa, Japan.
      • At the time, he was working as Chief Engineer of the M/V Eastern Meteor.
    • Death Certification:
      • A Death Certificate issued by Dr. Masayuki Inoue of Kakogawa Hospital stated that the cause of death was “myocardial infarction.”
  • Claim for Death Benefits
    • Complaint Filing:
      • On 17 December 1985, Mrs. Zaragoza filed a formal complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) (Case No. L-86-01-026).
    • Relief Sought by Mrs. Zaragoza:
      • Death benefits of P100,000.00 based on the NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71 of 18 November 1981 issued by the former National Seamen Board.
      • Additional claims for moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 and attorney’s fees.
  • Eastern’s Response and Prior Payments
    • Eastern’s Answer:
      • Denied any additional liability by stating that the company had already paid P12,000.00 as a cash benefit and P5,000.00 for funeral expenses.
      • Asserted that no cause of action existed beyond these amounts.
    • Jurisdictional Argument:
      • Eastern contended that it was not an “overseas employer” and claimed that the complaint should have been filed with the Social Security System rather than with POEA.
  • Administrative and Procedural Developments
    • POEA Decision:
      • On 19 March 1987, POEA rendered a Decision ordering Eastern to pay P88,000.00 as the unpaid balance of death benefits.
      • The claim for moral damages was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
    • Subsequent Judicial Actions:
      • Eastern directly petitioned the Supreme Court for Certiorari and Prohibition challenging the POEA decision.
      • A Temporary Restraining Order was issued on 8 April 1987.
      • A preliminary issue regarding non-exhaustion of administrative remedies was raised by the Solicitor General; however, the Court considered that the questions raised were essentially legal in nature.
  • Regulatory and Factual Context
    • Applicable Legal Framework:
      • Executive Order No. 797 (promulgated 1 May 1982) abolished the former National Seamen Board and conferred jurisdiction on the POEA over overseas employment matters.
      • NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71 specified compensatory benefits for seamen in cases of total and permanent disability or death.
    • Vessel Registration and Employment Conditions:
      • The M/V Eastern Meteor was registered with both the Philippine Coast Guard and the Ministerio de Hacienda y Tesoro of the Republic of Panama.
      • Despite dual registration, the vessel’s operations as an ocean-going vessel outside Philippine waters were central to determining the applicable benefits scheme.
      • Eastern’s submission of its shipping articles to POEA underscored its recognition of the administrator’s jurisdiction over its overseas employment affairs.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction over the Claim
    • Does POEA have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving employment that occurs overseas, as contended by Executive Order No. 797 and the POEA Rules and Regulations?
    • Is the complaint properly filed with POEA instead of with another agency such as the Social Security System?
  • Classification of Employment
    • Can Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. be considered an “overseas employer” given that Manuel Zaragoza was employed on an ocean-going vessel operating outside Philippine territorial waters?
  • Interpretation and Applicability of NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71
    • Does NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71 apply to the case, particularly regarding the payment of death benefits for a master/Chief Engineer?
    • How does the dual registration of the M/V Eastern Meteor (Philippine and Panamanian) affect the applicability of the benefits scheme provided in the memorandum?
  • Constitutional and Legislative Validity
    • Is the exercise of quasi-legislative power through NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71 constitutionally valid, in view of concerns regarding non-delegation of legislative power?
  • Determination of the Benefit Amount
    • What is the correct computation of the death benefits due to Mrs. Zaragoza under the applicable regulatory scheme?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.