JOSE B. ATIENZA, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIMARE SHIPPING AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, TRANS OCEAN LINER (PTE.) LTD., PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO…

The facts of this case are not disputed.  Even the legal issues are simple and are soon resolved.

 Joseph B. Atienza was engaged by Philimare
Shipping and Equipment Supply, as
agent for Trans Ocean Liner Pte. Ltd. of Germany,
based in Singapore,
to work as Third Mate on board the MV Tibati for the stipulated compensation of US$850.00 a month from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1982.^[1]
The Crew Agreement signed by the parties on January 3, 1981, provided for insurance benefits “as per
NSB Standard Format” and was validated and approved by the National
Seamen Board on January 14, 1981.^[2]

On May 12, 1981,
Atienza died as a result of an accident which befell
him while working on the vessel in Bombay, India.^[3]
In due time, his father, the herein petitioner, filed a claim for death
benefits computed at the rate of 36 months times the seaman’s monthly salary
plus ten per cent thereof in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Singapore, for a total of $30,600.00.  The private respondents, while admitting
liability, contended that this was limited to only P40,000.00
under Section D(1) of the NSB Standard Format.

On November 6, 1984,
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration sustained the private
respondent and held that the applicable law was Philippine law.^[4]
On appeal, the decision was affirmed by
the National Labor Relations Commission except that it increased the award to
P75,000.00 pursuant to NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71,
Series of 1981.^[5]

In the petition before us, we are asked to reverse the public
respondent on the ground that Singaporean law should have been applied in line
with our ruling in Norse Management Co.
v. National Seamen Board,^[6] where the foreign law was held controlling because it provided for greater
benefits for the claimant.  For their
part, the private respondents question the application of NSB Memorandum
Circular No. 71, Series of 1981, which they say became effective after the
seaman’s death.^[7]

On the first issue, our ruling is that Norse is not applicable to the present
petition.  The
reason is that in that case, it was specifically stipulated by the parties in
the Crew Agreement that “compensation shall be paid to employee in
accordance with and subject to the limitations of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act of the Philippines
or the Workmen’s Insurance Law of the registry of the vessel, whichever is
greater.”^[8]
That was why the higher benefits
prescribed by the foreign law were awarded.  By
contrast, no such stipulation appears in the Crew Agreement now under consideration.  Instead, it is clearly stated therein that
the insurance benefits shall be “as per NSB Standard Format,” in the
event “of death of the seaman during the term of his contract, over and above
the benefits for which the Philippine Government is liable under Philippine
law.”^[9]

The petitioner argues that the Standard Format prescribed only
the minimum benefits and does not preclude the parties from stipulating for
higher compensation.  That may be true
enough.  But the point is that the
parties in this case did not provide
for such higher benefits as the parties did in the Norse case.  There was no stipulation in the Crew
Agreement of January 3, 1981, that the employee would be entitled to whichever
greater insurance benefits were
offered by either Philippine law or the foreign law; on the contrary, it was plainly provided that insurance benefits would be determined according to the NSB Standard Format then in force.  The consequence is that the petitioner cannot
now claim a higher award than the
compensation prescribed in the said format.

As we said in Bagong Filipinas Overseas
Corporation v. NLRC:^[10]

We
hold that the shipboard employment contract is controlling in this case. 
The contract provides that the beneficiaries of the seaman are entitled
to P20,000.00 ‘over
and above the benefits’ for which the Philippine Government is liable under Philippine Law.

Hongkong law on workmens‘
compensation is not the applicable law.  The case of Norse Management Co. v. National
Seaman Board, G.R. No. 54204, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 486 cannot be a
precedent because it was expressly stipulated
in the employment contract in that case that the workmen’s compensation payable to the employee should be in accordance with Philippine Law or
the Workmen’s Insurance Law of the country where the vessel is registered
“whichever is greater.”

The next issue involves the effectivity
of NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71, which appears to have been retroactively
applied by the NLRC in increasing the compensation
from P40,000.00. 
The amended award was based by the POEA on NSB Memorandum
Circular No. 46, which became effective
in 1979.^[11] The NLRC, apparently laboring under the
belief that Memorandum Circular No. 71 was already effective at the time of the
seaman’s death on May 12, 1981, increased the death benefits to P75,000.00 as provided thereunder.  The fact, though, is that the new rule became
effective only in December 1981, as certified by the POEA itself,^[12] or seven months after Atienza’s
fatal accident.

On the petitioner’s claim that the award should be adjusted in
view of the decrease in the purchasing power of the Philippine peso, it
suffices to cite the following relevant ruling of the Court in Sta. Rita and
Well Run Maritime SA Ltd. v. NLRC:^[13]

Regarding the third contention of the petitioners, the records show
that when Sta. Rita died on September
14, 1981, NSB Memorandum Circular No. 46 (Series of 1979) was the applicable law.  Pursuant to this circular, in case of a seaman’s death during the terms of his contract, the
company shall pay his beneficiaries the amount of P30,000.00.  On November 18, 1981 or more than one month after Sta. Rita’s
death the administrative regulations were amended to increase death
compensation for seamen to P50,000.00, effective December
1, 1981.

Considering that the applicable law governing death compensation
for seamen at the time of Sta. Rita’s death was Memorandum Circular No. 46,
Series of         1979, the petitioner’s
liability should be limited to P30,000.00.  Moreover, if manning agents or shipping
corporations secure employer’s insurance
to cover their liabilities for death, total disability and sickness of officers
and ratings on board foreign going vessels, the extent of the coverage
is based on the applicable law
at the time.  It would be unjust to
compel them to pay benefits based on a law not yet in effect at the time the
contingency occurs.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC dated 15 July 1985 is SET ASIDE and that of
the POEA is REINSTATED, without any pronouncement as to costs.  It is so
ordered.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1] Annex “A2,” Rollo, p. 20.

^[2] Annex “A,” Rollo, p. 18; Annex “A3,” Rollo, p.
21.

^[3] Rollo, pp. 4-5.

^[4] Ibid., pp. 22-24.

^[5] Id.,
pp. 25-28.

^[6] 117 SCRA 486.

^[7] Rollo, p. 33.

^[8] 117 SCRA 491.

^[9] Sec. D (1) of the
NSB Standard Format.

^[10] 135 SCRA 278.

^[11] B. Sta. Rita and Well Run Maritime S.A. Ltd. v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 69132, 11 March 1985, First Division
Resolution.

^[12] Annex “1,” Rollo,
pp. 72-73; Annex “2,” Rollo, p. 74.

^[13] Supra, note 11.