GR No. 154213

Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. and Agemar Manning Agency, Inc. vs Estanislao Surio, et al

GR No. 154213

Facts:

MT Seadance is a vessel owned by Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd and manned and operated by Agemar Manning Agency. The same was not in a good working condition and the payment of wages, remittance of allotments, as well as the payment for extra work and extra overtime work were delayed. As MT Seadance docked at a port in Sweden, representatives of International Transport Federation boarded the same. They have found out that wages of its crew members were below the prevailing rates. As a result, they have moved to increase the wages of the said crewmembers. On Dec 23, 1993, the petitioners filed a complaint against the crew members and claimed reimbursement for the increase of wages received.

Issue:

Whether or not it is under the jurisdiction of NLRC to review cases on appeal decided by POEA.

Held:

No, the NLRC has no jurisdiction to review an appeal case decided by POEA. According to Section 28 (b) of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the POEA shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide disciplinary action cases and other special cases, which are administrative in character, involving employers, principals, contracting partners and Filipino migrant workers. Since RA No 8042 has been passed into a law after the filing of charges by the petitioner to the respondents, the rule on retroactivity of the laws shall be observed.

As a rule, all laws are prospective in application unless the contrary is expressly provided, or unless the law is procedural or curative in nature. Thus, such law stating that the POEA has the jurisdiction to decide on disciplinary cases shall be observed in the case at bar.

G.R. No. 188635

Brenda Nazareth vs Hon. Reynaldo Villar, et al

G.R. No. 188635

Facts:

Nazareth, the Regional Director of the Department of Science and Technology in the Region IX, has approved the release of Magna Carta benefits to the covered officials and employees commencing 1998, 1999, and 2001. The said appropriation has no provision in the GAA, which means that it has not been officially approved yet.

Issue:

Whether or not the release of the Magna Carta funds for 1998, 1999, and 2001 qualified officials and employees legal and valid.

Held:

It is not valid but the officials and employees do not have to reimburse the disallowed allowance. According to Section 25 (5) Article IV of the Constitution, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions are authorized to transfer appropriations to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices in their respective appropriations.

When the statute itself enumerates the exceptions to the application of the general rule, the exceptions are strictly but reasonably construed. The exceptions extend only as far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exceptions. Where the general rule is established by a statute with exceptions, none but the enacting authority can curtail the former. Not even the courts may add to the latter by implication, and it is a rule that an express exception excludes all others, although it is always proper in determining the applicability of the rule to inquire whether, in a particular case, it accords with reason and justice.

The appropriate and natural office of the exception is to exempt something from the scope of the general words of a statute, which is otherwise within the scope and meaning of such general words. Consequently, the existence of an exception in a statute clarifies the intent that the statute shall apply to all cases not excepted. Exceptions are subject to the rule of strict construction; hence, any doubt will be resolved in favor of the general provision and against the exception. Indeed, the liberal construction of a statute will seem to require in many circumstances that the exception, by which the operation of the statute is limited or abridged, should receive a restricted construction.