EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN MARITIME LTD. AND AGEMAR MANNING AGENCY, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. ESTANISLAO SURIO, FREDDIE PALGUIRAN, GRACIANO MORALES, HENRY CASTILLO, ARISTOTLE ARREOLA, A…

Eastern Mediterranean Maritime versus Surio

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. and Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., the owner and the manning agency of the vessel MT Seadance, against Estanislao Surio and his fellow former crewmembers. The petitioners had filed a disciplinary complaint against the seafarers before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, and when that complaint was dismissed they tried to appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission. The question that reaches the Supreme Court is a pure question of jurisdiction and procedure: after the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 took effect, which body may review a disciplinary decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration? The case matters because it fixes the boundary between the labor tribunals and the labor department in overseas employment cases, and because it teaches that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be taken before the body the law designates.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint for disciplinary action and for reimbursement against the respondents in the Workers Assistance and Adjudication Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. On May 23, 1996, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration dismissed the complaint. The petitioners received the order of dismissal on July 24, 1996, and on August 2, 1996 they filed a partial appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission. On March 21, 1997, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and it later denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus. Citing the St. Martin Funeral Homes case, the Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. On December 21, 2001, the Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that disciplinary cases decided by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration were within that agency's exclusive jurisdiction and that the National Labor Relations Commission had no appellate authority over them. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review, submitting the sole issue of whether the National Labor Relations Commission had jurisdiction to review on appeal the disciplinary decisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

Facts

The respondents were former crewmembers of MT Seadance, a vessel owned by Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. and manned and operated by Agemar Manning Agency, Inc. While on board, they experienced delays in the payment of their wages and in the remittance of allotments, were not paid for extra work and extra overtime work, and complained of inadequate equipment and of the petitioners' failure to heed their requests for better working conditions.

On December 19, 1993, while the vessel was docked at the port of Brofjorden in Sweden to discharge oil, representatives of the International Transport Federation boarded and found the respondents' wages to be below the prevailing rates. Negotiations between the federation and the vessel owner resulted in the payment of wage differentials and the immediate repatriation of the respondents to the Philippines.

On December 23, 1993, the petitioners filed a complaint for disciplinary action based on breach of discipline and for reimbursement of the wage increases. While that administrative complaint was pending, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 took effect on July 15, 1995. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration eventually dismissed the complaint, and the petitioners' appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, giving rise to this case.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission has jurisdiction to review on appeal cases decided by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration on matters pertaining to disciplinary actions against overseas contract workers.
• Whether or not the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 may be applied to a disciplinary complaint that was filed before the law took effect but was still pending when it took effect.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides:

Section 10. Money Claims. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.

This provision transferred money claims to the Labor Arbiters, but it did not touch disciplinary cases, which is the gap the petitioners tried to exploit.

Section 28 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides:

Section 28. Jurisdiction of the POEA. – The POEA shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide: (a) all cases, which are administrative in character, involving or arising out of violations or rules and regulations relating to licensing and registration of recruitment and employment agencies or entities; and (b) disciplinary action cases and other special cases, which are administrative in character, involving employers, principals, contracting partners and Filipino migrant workers.

This confirms that disciplinary action cases remained with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and were not given to the National Labor Relations Commission.

Section 38, Chapter 7, Title II, Book III of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Section 38. Definition of Administrative Relationship. – Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Code or in other laws defining the special relationships of particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be categorized and defined as follows: Supervision and Control. – Supervision and control shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and programs. Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in the specific law governing the relationship of particular agencies, the word "control" shall encompass supervision and control as defined in this paragraph.

This is the source of the Secretary of Labor's power to review the decisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

Section 1, Part VII, Rule V of the 2003 POEA Rules and Regulations provides:

Section 1. Jurisdiction. – The Secretary shall have the exclusive and original jurisdiction to act on appeals or petition for review of disciplinary action cases decided by the Administration.

This names the Secretary of Labor as the proper appellate body, and not the National Labor Relations Commission.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition lacked merit. Although Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 transferred money claims from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to the Labor Arbiters, the law did not remove from the agency its original and exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary action cases and other special administrative cases involving overseas workers. The Court found that the obvious intent of the law was to have the agency focus its efforts on resolving all administrative matters affecting overseas workers, an intent expressly recognized in Section 28 of the implementing rules. It was therefore clear that the National Labor Relations Commission had no appellate jurisdiction over the agency's disciplinary decisions.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the law could not be applied retroactively. It held that Republic Act No. 8042 was in a way a procedural law because it provided or omitted guidelines on appeal, and that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage without violating vested rights, since there are no vested rights in rules of procedure. The Court explained that the petitioners could not insist on reckoning the applicable law from the filing of the complaint in 1993, because the law and its implementing rules were already in effect when they took their appeal. It stressed that the right to appeal is statutory in character and is available only if granted by law or statute.

Having withheld the appellate jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission, the Court held that the appellate jurisdiction was vested in the Secretary of Labor under his power of supervision and control. The petitioners should therefore have appealed the adverse decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to the Secretary of Labor instead of to the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court of Appeals was correct, and the Court affirmed.

Doctrine

First, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration retains original and exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary action cases and other special administrative cases involving overseas Filipino workers; Republic Act No. 8042 removed only money claims from that agency and gave them to the Labor Arbiters.

Second, the National Labor Relations Commission has no appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary decisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The appeal lies with the Secretary of Labor by virtue of his power of supervision and control.

Third, the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right; it exists only when and as the law grants it, before the body the law designates, and under the procedure the law prescribes.

Fourth, a law that provides or omits guidelines on appeal is procedural in nature and may be applied retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage, because there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the National Labor Relations Commission has no appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary decisions of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration; the appeal belongs to the Secretary of Labor. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over overseas workers' disciplinary cases and the rule that the right to appeal is statutory and procedural.