[G. R. No. 144479.October 17, 2001]
MARINO INC. et al., vs. HON. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, et al.
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 17 2001.
G.R. No. 144479(Mariners Association for
Regional and International Networking Organization (MARINO), Inc. and Merchant
Marine Overseas Association, Inc., Petitioners, versus Hon. Bienvinedo
Laguesma, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment, and Hon. Reynaldo Regalado, in his capacity as the Administrator of
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Respondents.)
Petition for prohibition
with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the constitutionality or
legality of Department Order No. 04, Series of 2000, issued by then Secretary
Bienvenido E. Laguesma of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The
Department Order No. 04, which took effect on June 25, 2000, amended certain
provisions of the Rules On The Standard Terms And Conditions Governing. The
Employment Of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels adopted by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Petitioners contend that
the amendments incorporated in Department Order No. 04 are unconstitutional and
violative of existing laws since they constitute a diminution of Filipino
seafarers' benefits. Thus, they claim that respondent, then Secretary Laguesma,
issued the said order "in excess of his jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of
Earlier, or on June 23,
2000, a petition for certiorari with prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction was filed with this Court docketed as G.R. No. 143476.1 "PEDRO
L. LINSANGAN, ROMULO DELGADO, JR. and JANUARIO JIAO, Petitioners, vs. HON.
BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment, and HON. REYNALDO REGALADO, in his capacity as the
Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,
Respondents." Petitioners therein challenged the constitutionality or
legality of the same Department Order.
On September 10, 2001,
this Court issued a Resolution dismissing the petition in G.R. No. 143476 on
the grounds that: (1) the questioned Department Order is not within the ambit
of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended; and (2) the petition was filed in violation of the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The pertinent portions of the Resolution read:
petition is one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, which may be filed in case a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function has acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. In this case, the Secretary of Labor did not act as a
quasi-judicial officer. He promulgated a Department Order pursuant to his rule-making or quasi-legislative power under Section 9 of Executive Order No. 247
(Reorganizing the POEA [July 24, 1987]), being the Chairman of the Governing
Board of the POEA (Pursuant to Executive Order No. 797 reorganizing the DOLE and
creating the POEA [May 1, 1982]. Such act is not within the ambit of a special
civil action for certiorari (Philnabank Employees Association vs. Estanislao,
227 SCRA 804 f ).
x x x x
"Moreover, assuming that this petition falls under Rule
65 of the same Rules, it should have been filed with the lower court, not this
Court, under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts (Executive Secretary vs.
Gordon, 298 SCRA 736 (1998); Pearson vs. IAC, 295 SCRA 27 (1998)."
"WHEREFORE, the petition
In like manner, a special
civil action for prohibition may be invoked against a tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person exercising only judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.2 Section 2, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended. Following this Court's Resolution in G.R. No.
143476, the issuance of Department Order No. 04, Series of 2000 by then
Secretary of Labor Bienvenido Laguesma is not a proper subject of an original
action for prohibition.
Moreover, Section 5
paragraph 2 (A), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vests this Court with appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments and orders of lower courts in "all cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question." In the instant case, a direct resort
to this Court is improper. Such action violates the doctrine of hierarchy of
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court