Case Digest: Norse Management Co. vs. National Seaman Board Scrivener's Error, GR No. L. 54204, Sep 30,1982

Private International Law  

• Petitioner: Norse Management Co., Singapore

• Respondents:  Restituta C. Abordo

• Forum:  Philippines

Recit Version:

• Napoleon B. Abordo, a former Second Engineer of the Singaporean vessel M.T. "Cherry Earl," died from an apoplectic stroke while on duty. His widow, Restituta C. Abordo, filed a complaint seeking various benefits, including death compensation, funeral expenses, and attorney's fees. She contended that compensation should be based on Singaporean law, while Norse Management Co. and Pacific Seamen Services argued against this, proposing instead a lesser amount based on the National Seamen Board's circular.

• Singaporean law governs the benefits granted to Restituta C. Abordo, as stipulated in the employment agreement, which allows for compensation based on either Philippine law or the law of the vessel’s registry, whichever is greater. Since the petitioners offered only P30,000, applying Singaporean law was appropriate. 

• The National Seamen Board is justified in taking judicial notice of Singaporean law despite the absence of formal proof, as administrative agencies are not bound by strict procedural rules. 

Facts:

• Napoleon B. Abordo, former Second Engineer of M.T. "Cherry Earl," died from an apoplectic stroke while employed with Norse Management Co. (PTE), a Singaporean vessel.

• At the time of his death, his monthly salary was US$850.00.

• Restituta C. Abordo, his widow, filed a complaint for benefits including death compensation, accrued leave pay, time-off allowances, funeral expenses, attorney's fees, and others.

• Restituta C. Abordo argued that compensation should be based on Singaporean law.

• Norse Management Co. and Pacific Seamen Services contended that Singaporean law should not apply because the National Seamen Board could not take judicial notice of it. 

• They proposed a death benefit of P30,000.00 based on the Board's Memorandum Circular No. 25.

• Hearing Officer Rebene C. Carrera: Ordered the petitioners to pay:

1. US$30,600 (36 months’ salary) as death compensation,

2. US$500.00 for funeral expenses,

3. US$3,110 as attorney's fees. 

4. Payment was to be made through the National Seamen Board within 10 days.

• The petitioners appealed, arguing that the Board should not apply Singaporean law due to lack of evidence and instead should follow the Board's circular.

• Ministry of Labor: Ruled that Singaporean law should apply, as it was the law of the vessel's registration, and the Board could take judicial notice of it.

• Employment Agreement: The agreement stipulated that compensation would be paid under Philippine law or the law of the vessel’s registry, whichever was greater.

Issues:

1. Whether Singapore law or Philippine law governs the grant of benefits to Abordo's wife.

Singapore law governs the grant of benefits to Abordo's wife. 

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 win 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.  

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.

2. Whether the National Seamen Board can take judicial notice of Singapore law absent proof thereof.

Yes, administrative agencies are not bound by technical rules of procedure. 

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 VirJen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. vs. National Seamen Board, et al (L41297), 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 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 Remegio 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 resolution 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 resolved in favor of labor.”

For lack of merit, this petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.