Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA

FACTS:
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
4nsurance.
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
ordered.
ISSUE:
1. 8hether or not POE has $urisdiction
HELD:
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 $urisdiction
over all cases, includin# money claims, involvin# employee=employer relations arisin#
out of or by virtue of any law or contract involvin# 3ilipino contract wor%ers, includin#
seamen.<
The award of P1-0, 000.00 for death benefits and P12, 000.00 for burial e/penses was
made by the POE pursuant to its )emorandum (ircular 0o. 2, which became effective
on 3ebruary 1, 19-:. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both
forei#n and domestic shippin# companies in the hirin# of 3ilipino seamen for overseas
employment.
9ut the petitioner >uestions the validity of )emorandum (ircular 0o. 2 itself as violative
of the principle of non=dele#ation of le#islative power. 4t contends that no authority had
been #iven the POE to promul#ate the said re#ulation? and even with such
authori2ation, the re#ulation represents an e/ercise of le#islative discretion which, under
the principle, is not sub$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.<