Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA

The private respondent in this case was awarded the sum of P192, 000.00 by the Philippine
Overseas Employment dministration !POE" for the death of her husband. The decision is
challen#ed by the petitioner on the principal #round that the POE had no $urisdiction over the
case as the husband was not an overseas wor%er.
&italiano 'aco was (hief Officer of the )*& Eastern Polaris when he was %illed in an accident in
To%yo, +apan on )arch 1,, 19-,..is widow sued for dama#es under E/ecutive Order 0o. 191
and )emorandum (ircular 0o. 2of the POE.
The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, ar#ued that the complaint was co#ni2able not by the
POE but by the 'ocial 'ecurity 'ystem and should have been filed a#ainst the 'tate 3und
The POE nevertheless assumed $urisdiction and after considerin# the position papers of the
parties ruled in favor of the complainant. The petition is 54')4''E5, with costs a#ainst the
petitioner. The temporary restrainin# order dated 5ecember 10, 19-6 is hereby 743TE5. 4t is so
1. 8hether or not POE has $urisdiction
1. The Philippine Overseas Employment dministration was created under E/ecutive
Order 0o. 191, promul#ated on )ay 1, 19-2, to promote and monitor the overseas
employment of 3ilipinos and to protect their ri#hts. 4t replaced the 0ational 'eamen
9oard created earlier under rticle 20 of the 7abor (ode in 191:. ;nder 'ection :!a" of
the said e/ecutive order, the POE is vested with <ori#inal and e/clusive $urisdiction
over all cases, includin# money claims, involvin# employee=employer relations arisin#
out of or by virtue of any law or contract involvin# 3ilipino contract wor%ers, includin#
The award of P1-0, 000.00 for death benefits and P12, 000.00 for burial e/penses was
made by the POE pursuant to its )emorandum (ircular 0o. 2, which became effective
on 3ebruary 1, 19-:. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both
forei#n and domestic shippin# companies in the hirin# of 3ilipino seamen for overseas
9ut the petitioner >uestions the validity of )emorandum (ircular 0o. 2 itself as violative
of the principle of non=dele#ation of le#islative power. 4t contends that no authority had
been #iven the POE to promul#ate the said re#ulation? and even with such
authori2ation, the re#ulation represents an e/ercise of le#islative discretion which, under
the principle, is not sub$ect to dele#ation.
)emorandum (ircular 0o. 2 is an administrative re#ulation. The model contract
prescribed thereby has been applied in a si#nificant number of the cases without
challen#e by the employer. The power of the POE !and before it the 0ational 'eamen
9oard" in re>uirin# the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard
#uidin# the dele#ate in the e/ercise of the said authority. That standard is discoverable
in the e/ecutive order itself which, in creatin# the Philippine Overseas Employment
dministration, mandated it to protect the ri#hts of overseas 3ilipino wor%ers to <fair and
e>uitable employment practices.<