ELS v. POEA - digest PDF

Preview

Summary

digest...

Description

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988 Cruz, J. Nature/Keyword: Legislative Power and Undue Delegation of Legislative Powers Petitioners: Respondents: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Minister of Labor and Employment Hearing Officer Abdul Basar Kathleen D. Saco Recit Ready Summary Petitioner challenged the decision of POEA that the POEA has no jurisdiction over the case of Vitaliano Saco since he was not categorized as an overseas worker. Vitaliano Saco was a Chief Executive Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan on March 15, 1985. The widow filed a complaint against the Eastern Shipping Lines with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration based on the Memorandum Circular No. 2 and Executive Order No. 797. The Memorandum Circular No. 2 stipulated the death benefits and burial expenses for the family of the Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW). The petitioner, who is the owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint is cognizable not by the POEA but the SSS and should have filed against the state insurance fund. After considering the position paper of both party, the POEA assumed jurisdiction in favor of the complainant (Kathleen Saco). The petitioner argued that the deceased employee (Vitaliano Saco) should be similar with the employees of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) in which they are working abroad but they are not considered as Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW). The petitioner also questioned the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 as violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative powers. The petitioner contends that the POEA has no authority to promulgate the said regulation and even with the authorization, the regulation must exercise a legislative discretion which under the principle is not subject to delegation. The Petition was dismissed with cost against the petitioner. Facts of the case 1. On March 15, 1985, Vitaliano Saco, who is the husband of the respondent (Kathleen Saco) and a Chief Officer of M/V Eastern Polaris, was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan. 2. The widow filed a complaint against the Easter Shipping Lines with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration based on the Memorandum Circular No. 2 and Executive Order No. 797. The Memorandum Circular No. 2 stipulated the death benefits and burial expenses for the family of the Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW). 3. The private respondent was awarded the sum of 192,000 by the POEA for the death of her husband. This decision was challenged by the petitioner (Eastern Shipping Lines) on the principal ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over the case of Saco since he is not an overseas worker. 4. The petitioner also questioned the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 as violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative powers. The petitioner contends that the POEA has no

authority to promulgate the said regulation and even with the authorization, the regulation must exercise a legislative discretion which under the principle is not subject to delegation. The POEA assumed the jurisdiction and decided the case. Issue Ruling 1. W/N the POEA has jurisdiction over the case, even Yes though Vitaliano Saco was not an overseas worker as contended by Eastern Shipping Lines 2. W/N Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself is violative of the principles No of non-delegation of legislative powers Rationale/Legal Basis 1. Yes, Vitaliano Saco was an overseas employee of the Eastern Shipping Lines at the time the accident happened since he died while under a contract of employment with the petitioner and the petitioner’s vessel in a foreign country. Under the 1985 Rules of Regulation on Overseas employment it is defined that an “Overseas Employment is an employment of a worker outside the Philippines, including employment in board vessels plying international water, covered by a valid contract”. 2. No, there was no principles violated. The POEA has an authority to the regulation as stated in Section 4 (a) of Executive Order No. 797, “The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), as hereunder provided shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory function of the administration (POEA)”. The legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. The things that can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not the law shall be. In the discretion of how the law shall be is a prerogative of the legislature. The prerogative cannot be abdicated by the legislature to the delegate. There are two accepted tests to know whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not: a. Completeness test – The law is complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that the delegate will only enforce it. b. Sufficient Standard test – there is an adequate guideline in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running a riot. The reason for the delegation of legislative power is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of the society created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot reasonable comprehend. Thus, a solution is having a delegate who is supposed to be an expert in the particular field. The reasons for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant to 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 provision of the statute which is called the “power of subordinate legislation”. With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in statute by filling in the details which the congress may not provide. In the case, Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one of the administrative regulation. Disposition

The petition is hereby DISMISSED with the cost against the petitioner....