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…

Norse Management versus National Seamen Board

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Norse Management Company, a Singapore-registered shipowner, and Pacific Seamen Services, Incorporated, its Philippine agent, against the National Seamen Board and the widow of a seaman who died while serving on board their vessel. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to nullify the Board's award of death compensation benefits computed under Singapore law, and to reduce their liability to 30,000 pesos under the Board's standard format of a service agreement. The case matters because it settles a question every maritime practitioner must know: whether a foreign law governing workmen's compensation may be applied by the National Seamen Board even when that law was never pleaded and formally proved as evidence.

Procedural History

Restituta Abordo filed a complaint for death compensation benefits, accrued leave pay and time-off allowances, funeral expenses, and attorney's fees before the National Seamen Board. The Hearing Officer rendered a decision ordering the petitioners to pay, jointly and severally, death compensation, funeral expenses, and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the Ministry of Labor, which denied their motion for reconsideration and affirmed the order, directing that execution issue immediately. From that ruling, the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

Napoleon Abordo, the husband of private respondent Restituta Abordo, was employed as Second Engineer on board the M.T. Cherry Earl, a vessel of Singapore registry, under an employment agreement with Norse Management Company. At the time of his death he was receiving a monthly salary of 850 dollars.

In May 1978, while the vessel was at sea, he suffered an apoplectic stroke and died four days later, on the twenty-ninth of May. His widow then filed a claim before the National Seamen Board, insisting that the compensation due her should be measured by the law of the country where the vessel is registered, that is, the law of Singapore.

The petitioners resisted, arguing that the law of Singapore could not be applied because it was never alleged in the complaint, was never proved, and could not be the subject of judicial notice by the Board. As an alternative, they offered to pay 30,000 pesos in death benefits under the Board's Memorandum Circular Number 25. The Board nonetheless applied Singapore law and awarded 30,600 dollars in death compensation, 500 dollars in funeral expenses, and 3,110 dollars in attorney's fees.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Seamen Board may apply the workmen's compensation law of Singapore even though that foreign law was not alleged and proved as evidence during the hearing.
• Whether or not the petitioners' liability should be reduced to 30,000 pesos under the Board's standard format of a service agreement.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5(B) of the Employment Agreement between Norse Management Company and the late Napoleon Abordo provides:

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.

This contractual clause is the key, because it binds the employer to pay under Philippine law or the law of the vessel's registry, whichever yields the greater benefit, and it is the clause the Court enforces.

Article 20 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides:

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.

This provision supplies the Board's jurisdiction and, in the Court's reasoning, supports the presumption that the Board is familiar with pertinent Singapore maritime laws.

Article IV of the Labor Code provides:

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.

This provision anchors the Court's resolution of any doubt in favor of the seaman's widow.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Board properly applied Singapore law. The Court began with the employment agreement itself, which expressly provides that compensation shall be paid under Philippine law or the law of the registry of the vessel, whichever is greater. Since the petitioners offered only 30,000 pesos, the greater benefit under Singapore law was correctly applied. The Court also held that because the employment agreement was attached to the supplemental complaint, it formed part thereof, and the Board, being familiar with Singapore law, was justified in taking judicial notice of and applying that law. The Court pointed to its earlier resolutions dismissing the challenge in Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services versus National Seamen Board, where the Board had likewise taken notice that Singapore maritime laws on workmen's compensation resemble those of Hong Kong and award the equivalent of thirty-six months' wages. The Court added that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not strictly bound by the technical rules of procedure and evidence observed in judicial trials, and that all doubts are resolved in favor of labor.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the plea to reduce liability to 30,000 pesos. The contractual stipulation of "whichever is greater" foreclosed that alternative, and the petition was denied for lack of merit.

Doctrine

A foreign law on workmen's compensation may be applied by the National Seamen Board even if not formally pleaded and proved, because administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not strictly bound by the technical rules of evidence, and the Board may take judicial notice of the maritime laws of the country of registry. Where the employment agreement stipulates that compensation shall be paid under Philippine law or the law of the registry of the vessel, whichever is greater, the employer is bound by that stipulation, and the seaman's heirs are entitled to the greater benefit. Any doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the Labor Code is resolved in favor of labor.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the award of death compensation, funeral expenses, and attorney's fees computed under Singapore law was sustained.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the law of the vessel's registry, when it gives the greater benefit under the employment contract, may be applied by the National Seamen Board even without formal proof, because technical rules of evidence do not strictly bind quasi-judicial bodies. Examiners use this case on the conflict of laws rule that a foreign law must be alleged and proved, and on its maritime labor exception.