ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143476.September 10, 2001]

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN et al. vs. HON. LAGUESMA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 10 2001.

G.R. No. 143476(Pedro L. Linsangan, Romulo Delgado, Jr. and Januario Jiao 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.)

Petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality or legality of Department Order Number 04, Series of 2000, issued by then Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), effective June 25, 2000, amending the Rules on the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, as revised, adopted by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

The factual background of the instant petition is as follows:

The Philippines has been a major source of seafarers deployed for work in vessels navigating international waters. To protect our seafarers, the POEA adopted and approved in 1989, revised in 1996, the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels, (Revised SEC for brevity). Meanwhile, as more and more Filipino seamen became aware of their rights, they filed cases for "tortious damages" mostly in foreign jurisdictions where the vessels of the principals could be attached, much to the discontent of their foreign employers. Because of the tort claims, our seafarers were perceived as "Filipinos who complain too much". In fact, foreign employers were no longer willing to hire Filipino seafarers in large scale unless the Revised SEC is amended in order that better terms and conditions in favor of employers' sector are inserted in the Revised SEC. Thus, the Labor Secretary was constrained to issue the assailed Department Order Number 04, Series of 2000 amending the Revised SEC.

Petitioners Linsangan (a maritime lawyer), Delgado, Jr. and Jiao (both seafarers) contend that the amended Rules on the Revised SEC are unconstitutional and violate existing laws as they constitute a diminution of Filipino seafarers' benefits. The same amended Rules are likewise arbitrary and unreasonable.

Hence, the present petition.

The instant petition is one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which maybe filed in case a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions 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, ¹ Reorganizing the POEA (July 24, 1987) being the Chairman of the Governing Board of the POEA. ² Pursuant to Executive Order No. 797 reorganizing the Department of Labor and Employment and creating the POEA (May 1, 1982). Such act is not within the ambit of a special civil action for certiorari.

In Philnabank Employees Association vs. Estanislao ³ 227 SCRA 804 (1993), penned by Justice Jose C. Vitug, this Court held:

"The instant petition for certiorari cannot be granted. Firstly, the respondent department secretaries, in promulgating the questioned rule did so in accordance with the mandate of Republic Act No. 6971. Concededly, in the process, neither did said respondents act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor did they arrogate unto themselves any such performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. A petition for certiorari is a special civil action that may be invoked only against, a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Court is explicit on this matter."

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. ⁴ Executive Secretary vs. Gordon, 298 SCRA 736 (1998); Pearson vs. IAC, 295 SCRA 27 (1998).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE