Norse Management Co. vs National Seamen Board

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

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 RESTITUTA C. ABORDO, respondents.

Facts:

Napoleon B. Abordo, the deceased husband of private respondent Restituta C. Abordo, was the Second Engineer of M.T. "Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the course of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTE). The M.T. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean Registry. In her complaint for compensation benefits filed before the National Seamen Board, private respondent alleged that the amount of compensation due her from petitioners should be based on the law where the vessel is registered. Petitioners contend that the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's Insurance Law of Singapore instead must be based on Board’s Memeorandum Circular No. 25. Ministry of Labor and Employment ordered the petitioner to pay jointly and severally the private respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Ministry of Labor but same decision. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the law of Singapore ought to be applied in this case.

Held:

The SC denied the petition. It has always been the policy of this Board, as enunciated in a long line of cases, that in cases of valid claims for benefits on account of injury or death while in the course of employment, the law of the country in which the vessel is registered shall be considered. In Section 5(B) of the Employment Agreement between petitioner and respondent’s husband states 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, EMPLOYER will provide employee with free medical attention. 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. 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.

Acknowlwgement: Barbie pinos