NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. (PTE) AND PACIFIC SEAMEN SERVICES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, HON. CRESCENCIO M. SIDDAYAO, OSCAR M. TORRES, REBENE C. CARRERA AND RESTITU…

In this petition for certiorari, petitioners pray that the order
dated June 20, 1979 of the National Seamen Board, and the decision dated
December 11, 1979 of the Ministry of Labor be nullified and set aside, and that
“if petitioners are found liable to private respondent, such a liability be
reduced to P30 ,000.00 only, in accordance with respondent NSB’s Standard Format
of a Service Agreement.”

Napoleon B. Abordo, the deceased husband of private respondent Restituta C.
Abordo, was the Second Engineer of M.T. “Cherry Earl” when he died from an
apoplectic stroke in the course of his employment with petitioner NORSE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTE).  The M.T. “Cherry Earl” is a vessel of Singaporean
Registry.  The late Napoleon B. Aberdo at the time of his death was receiving a
monthly salary of US$850.00 (Petition, page 5).

In her complaint for “death compensation benefits, accrued leave pay and
time-off allowances, funeral expenses, attorney’s fees and other benefits and
reliefs available in connection with the death of Napoleon B. Abordo,” filed
before the National Seamen Board, Restituta C. Abordo alleged that the amount of
compensation due her from petitioners Norse Management Co. (PTE) and Pacific
Seamen Services, Inc., principal and agent, respectively, should be based on the
law where the vessel is registered.  On the other hand, petitioners contend that
the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National
Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen’s Insurance Law of
Singapore.  As an alternative, they offered to pay private respondent Restituta
C. Abordo the sum of P30 ,000.00 as death benefits based on the Board’s
Memorandum Circular No. 25 which they claim should apply in this case.

The Hearing Officer III, Rebene C. Carrera of the Ministry of Labor and
Employment, after hearing the case, rendered judgment on June 20, 1979, ordering
herein petitioners “to pay jointly and severally the following:

“I.    US$30,600 (the 36-month salary of the deceased) or its equivalent in
Philippine currency as death compensation benefits;

II.    US$500.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency as funeral
expenses;

III.   US$3,110 or 10% of the total amount recovered as attorney’s fees.

“It is also ordered that payment must be made thru the National Seamen Board
within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision.”

Petitioners appealed to the Ministry of Labor.  On December 11, 1979, the
Ministry rendered its decision in this case as follows:

“Motion for reconsideration filed by respondents from the Order of this Board
dated 20 June 1979 requiring them to pay-complainant, jointly and severally, the
amount of Thirty-four thousand and two hundred ten dollars ($34,210.00)
representing death benefits, funeral expenses and attorney’s fees.

“The facts in the main are not disputed.  The deceased, husband of
complainant herein, was employed as a Second Engineer by respondents and served
as such in the vessel ‘M.T. Cherry Earl’ until that fatal day in May 1978 when,
while at sea, he suffered an apoplectic stroke and died four days later or on 29
May 1978.  In her complaint filed before this Board, Abordo argued that the
amount of compensation due her should be based on the law where the vessel is
registered, which is Singapore law.  Agreeing with said argument, this Board
issued the questioned Order.  Hence this Motion for Reconsideration.

“In their motion for reconsideration, respondents strongly argue that the law
of Singapore should not be applied in the case considering that their
responsibility was not alleged in the complaint that no proof of the existence
of the Workmen’s Insurance Law of Singapore was ever presented and that the
Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen’s Insurance Law of Singapore. 
As an alternative, they offered to pay complainant the amount of Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30 ,000.00) as death benefits based on this Board’s Memorandum Circular
No. 25 which, they maintained, should apply in this case.

“The only issue we are called upon to rule is whether or not the law of
Singapore ought to be applied in this case.

“After an exhaustive study of jurisprudence on the matter, we rule in the
affirmative.  Respondents came out with a well-prepared motion which, to our
mind, is more appropriate and perhaps acceptable in the regular court of
justice.  Nothing is raised in their motion but question of evidence.  But
evidence is usually a matter of procedure of which this Board, being merely a
quasi-judicial body, is not strict about.

“It is true that the law of Singapore was not alleged and proved in the
course of the hearing.  And following Supreme Court decisions in a long line of
cases that a foreign law, being a matter of evidence, must be alleged and
proved, the law of Singapore ought not to be recognized in this cases.  But it
is our considered opinion that the jurisprudence on this matter was never meant
to apply to cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies such as the
National Seamen Board.  For well-settled also is the rule that administrative
and quasi-judicial bodies are not bound strictly by technical rules.  It has
always been the policy of this Board, as enunciated in a long line of cases,
that in cases of valid claims for benefits on account of injury or death while
in the course of employment, the law of the country in which the vessel is
registered shall be considered.  We see no reason to deviate from this
well-considered policy.  Certainly not on technical grounds as movants herein
would like us to.

“WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied and the Order of
this Board dated 20 June 1979 affirmed.  Let execution issue immediately.”

In Section 5(B) of the “Employment Agreement” between Norse Management Co.
(PTE) and the late Napoleon B. Abordo, which is Annex “C” of the Supplemental
Complaint, it was stipulated that:

“In the event of illness or injury to Employee arising out of and in the
course of his employment and not due to his own willful misconduct and occurring
whilst on board any vessel to which he may be assigned, but not any other time,
the EMPLOYER will provide employee with free medical attention, including
hospital treatment, also essential medical treatment in the course of
repatriation and until EMPLOYEE’s arrival at his point of origin.  If such
illness or injury, incapacitates the EMPLOYEE to the extent the EMPLOYEE’S
services must be terminated as determined by a qualified physician designated by
the EMPLOYER and provided such illness or injury was not due in part or whole to
his willful act, neglect or misconduct compensation shall be paid to employee in
accordance with and subject to the limitations of the Workmen’s Compensation Act
of the Republic of the Philippines or the Workmen’s Insurance Law of registry of
the vessel whichever is greater.” ( underscoring for emphasis)

In the aforementioned “Employment Agreement” between petitioners and the late
Napoleon B. Abordo, it is clear that compensation shall be paid under Philippine
Law or the law of registry of petitioners’ vessel, whichever is greater.  Since
private respondent Restituta C. Abordo was offered P30 ,000.00 only by the
petitioners, Singapore law was properly applied in this case.

The “Employment Agreement” is attached to the Supple­mental Complaint of
Restituta C. Abordo and, therefore, it forms part thereof.  As it is familiar
with Singapore Law, the National Seamen Board is justified in taking judicial
notice of and in applying that law.  In the case of Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine
Services, Inc. vs. National Seamen Board, et al (L-41297), the respondent Board
promulgated a decision, as follows:

“The facts established and/or admitted by the parties are the following: 
that the late Remigio Roldan was hired by the respondent as Ordinary Seamen on
board the M/V ‘ Singapura Pertama’, a vessel of Singapore Registry; that on
September 27, 1973, the deceased Remigio Roldan met an accident resulting in his
death while on board the said M/V ‘ Singapura Pertama’ during the performance of
his duties; that on December 3, 1973, the respondent Virjen Shipping and Marine
Services, Inc. paid to the complainant Natividad Roldan the amount of P6,000.00
representing Workmen’s Compensation benefits and donations of the company; that
the amount of P4,870 was spent by the respondent company as burial expenses of
the deceased Remigio Roldan.

“The only issue therefore remaining to be resolved by the Board in connection
with the particular case, is whether or not under the existing laws (Philippine
and foreign), the complainant Natividad Roldan is entitled to additional
benefits other than those mentioned earlier.  The Board takes judicial notice,
(as a matter of fact, the respondent having admitted in its memorandum) of the
fact that ‘ Singapura Pertama’ is a foreign vessel of Singapore Registry and it
is the policy of this Board that in case of award of benefits to seamen who were
either injured in the performance of its duties or who died while in the course
of employment is to consider the benefits allowed by the country where the
vessel is registered.  Likewise, the Board takes notice that Singapore maritime
laws relating to workmen’s compensation benefits are similar to that of the
Hongkong maritime laws which provides that in case of death, the heirs of the
deceased seaman should receive the equivalent of 36 months wages of the deceased
seaman; in other words, 36 months multiplied by the basic monthly wages.  In the
employment contract submitted with this Board, the terms of which have never
been at issue, is shown that the monthly salary of the deceased Remigio Roldan
at the time of his death was US$80.00; such that, 36 months multiplied by $80
would come up to US$2,880 and at the rate of P7.00 to $1.00, the benefits due
the claimant would be P20 ,160.  However, since there was voluntary payment made
in the amount of P6 ,000 and funeral expenses which under the Workmen’s
Compensation Law had a maximum of P200.00, the amount of P6,200.00 should be
deducted from P20,160 and the difference would be P13,960.00.

“WHEREFORE, the Board orders the respondent Virjen Shipping
and Marine Services, Inc. to pay the complainant Natividad Roldan the amount of
P13 ,960.00 within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision.  The Board also
orders the respondent that payment should be made through the National Seamen
Board.”

The foregoing decision was assailed as null and void for allegedly having
been rendered without jurisdiction and for awarding compensation benefits beyond
the maximum allowable and on the ground of res judicata.  This Court in its
resolutions dated October 27, 1975 and December 12, 1975, respectively,
dismissed for lack of merit the petition as well as the motion for
reconsideration in said G.R. No. L-41297.

Furthermore, Article 20, Labor Code of the Philippines, provides that the
National Seamen Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters
or cases including money claims, involving employer-employee relations, arising
out of or by virtue of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for
overseas employment.  Thus, it is safe to assume that the Board is familiar with
pertinent Singapore maritime laws relative to workmen’s compensation.  Moreover,
the Board may apply the rule on judicial notice and, “in administrative
proceedings, the technical rules of procedure – particularly of evidence –
applied in judicial trials, do not strictly apply.” ( Oromeca Lumber Co. Inc.
vs. Social Security Commission, 4 SCRA 1188).

Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code provides that “all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.”

For lack of merit, this petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Plana, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr.,
JJ.,concur.
Teehankee, J., (Chairman), no
part.
Melencio-Herrera, J., in the result.