EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, HEARING OFFICER CHERYL AMPIL AND ANGELES J. URBIZTONDO, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner is challenging the decision of the POEA awarding
death and burial benefits to the private respondents.  The contention is that the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration had no jurisdiction over the employee’s
claim, which should have been addressed to the Social Security System and
charged to the State Insurance Fund.

The decision disposed as follows:

Francisco Urbiztondo was hired for the
duration of the voyage of Eastern Galaxy which started on November 9, 1985. 
He was disembarked for treatment on December 13, 1985. 
Nothing in the record of this case can suggest that the voyage for which he was contracted had ended at the
time of his death.  This defense was not
raised in respondent’s answer.  Under the
circumstances, this Office finds that Section D, Part II of the POEA Standard
Format as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 2 which took effect on February
1, 1984 is
applicable.  Complainant is entitled to
P180,000.00 death compensation and P18,000.00 burial allowances over and above the benefits which are provided for
and are the liabilities of the Philippine government under Philippine laws.

WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainant ONE
HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P198,000.00) representing death
compensation and burial allowance.

SO ORDERED.

The question is not new. 
In fact, it has already been categorically resolved by this Court in an
earlier case involving the same petitioner herein and the same public
respondent.

In Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA,^[1]
we pointed out that under Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 797, promulgated
on May 1, 1982, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, as successor
of the National Seamen’s Board, was vested with “original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, involving
employee-employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract
involving Filipino contract workers, including seamen.” The Court also
held, for the reasons mentioned in that decision, that Memorandum Circular No.
2, under which the award of death and burial benefits had been made, was a
valid administrative regulation adopted pursuant to a valid delegation of
legislative powers made in the said executive order.

The parties, especially the petitioner, should be aware by now of
the rationale of that decision, which was promulgated in 1988 and remains
controlling.  The discussion in that case
of the same issues involved in the present petition does not have to be
reproduced in this opinion.

The procedural objections raised by the petitioner are not
substantial.  The circumstance that the
motion to dismiss was not first resolved before the case was decided on the
merits is not a fatal flaw that
should invalidate the proceedings.  The
decision was in fact based on the evidence of record, consisting partly of
documents submitted by the petitioner itself.^[2]
At any rate, it is settled that the technical rules of procedure are not
required to be strictly observed in administrative proceedings.

The factual findings of the POEA are sustained, there being no
sufficient showing that they were resolved arbitrarily or did not have any
evidentiary basis.  These include the
conclusion that the private respondent was an overseas contract worker under
the petitioner’s employ and was thus entitled to the awards provided for in the
Memorandum Circular No. 2.

As correctly observed by the private respondents:

There is no question that petitioner’s Shipping Articles were
processed by the POEA (Annex D to the petition) and in the light of the foregoing ruling, it is submitted that
the late Mr. Urbiztondo is deemed to have the status
of overseas contract worker and petitioner deemed to have engaged in overseas
employment of the deceased, for purposes of compliance with the rules and
regulations issued by the POEA in this respect, based on and relative to the
powers and functions conferred upon it (POEA) by Executive Order No. 797.  Consequently, by submitting itself to the
strict conditions imposed by the POEA for domestic Shipping Corporations
engaged in ocean-going trade who make use of a Filipino complement/petitioner
has bound itself to the faithful compliance of the rules imposed by the POEA,
including of course, its obligations towards its employees’ under the Revised
Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board
Any Ocean-Going Vessel, as mandated under Memorandum Circular No. 2 dated
December 29, 1983.^[3]

A  similar conclusion, based on the same circumstances,
was reached in the earlier Eastern Shipping Lines case.

After careful consideration of the petition, the comments thereon
of the respondents, and the consolidated reply thereto, the Court is convinced
that the challenged decision has not been rendered with grave abuse of
discretion and should therefore be sustained.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against
the petitioner.  It is so ordered.

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

^[1]
166 SCRA 533.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 40-49.

^[3]
Ibid., pp. 144-145.