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 Summary (G.R. No. 77828)

Facts of the Case

Manuel Zaragoza had been employed with Eastern Shipping Lines since 1973. His death in Kakogawa, Japan was attributed to myocardial infarction. Following his death, Ma. Lourdes filed a complaint with the POEA on December 17, 1985, seeking death benefits amounting to PHP 100,000, along with moral damages of PHP 50,000 and attorney's fees. Eastern Shipping Lines responded that it had already provided a cash benefit of PHP 12,000 for death and PHP 5,000 for funeral expenses, asserting that Ma. Lourdes’ claim was baseless.

Jurisdictional Issues

Eastern Shipping challenged the jurisdiction of the POEA, arguing that it was not engaged as an overseas employer and that the claims should have been directed to the Social Security System. However, the court ruled that the POEA had original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising from employer-employee relations involving Filipino workers overseas, which includes seamen. This is supported by Executive Order No. 797 and related regulations, affirming that the POEA governs claims related to death and disability benefits for seafarers.

Employment Status and Relevant Law

The court established that at the time of his death, Manuel Zaragoza was indeed an employee of Eastern since he was under a valid employment contract as a seaman on a vessel operating outside Philippine waters. The fact that Eastern submitted its shipping articles to POEA demonstrated its acknowledgment of the regulatory authority over overseas employment.

Death Benefits Assessment

The POEA relied on Memorandum Circular No. 71, which outlined the compensation due for the death of a seaman. The circular mandates that employers pay a fixed amount to the beneficiaries of seamen who die while under contract. Eastern Shipping contested the applicability of this circular, arguing that it contradicted principles of non-delegation of legislative powers, but the court affirmed the validity of the circular, recognizing the authority of the NSB (National Seamen Board) and its successor, POEA.

Registration and Coverage Arguments

The petitioner attempted to argue that the M/V Eastern Meteor's dual registration—both in Panama and the Philippines—exempted it from the purview of Memorandum Circular No. 71. However, the court clarified that the underlying intent of the regulation was to ensure t

...continue reading

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