Joseph B.

Atienza (Joseph) was engaged by Philimare Shipping and Equipment

Supply, as agent for Trans Ocean Liner Pte. Ltd. of Germany, based on
Singapore. The contract provide for Insurance benefits as per National Seamen
Board (NSB) format.
On March 12, 1981 Joseph died on an accident. In due time his father, Josie
Atienza (Josie), the herein petitioner claim a death benefits in accordance with
the Workmen's Compensation Law of Singapore based on the Norse case. The
private respondents, while admitting liability, contended that this was limited to
only P40,000.00 under NSB. The Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) sustained the private respondent and held that the
applicable law was Philippine law. On appeal, the decision was affirmed by the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) except that it increased the award
to P75,000.00 pursuant to NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71, Series of 1981.
The private respondents question the application of NSB Memorandum Circular
No. 71, Series of 1981, which they say became effective after the seaman's
death.

ISSUES:
Whether the Philiippines law or Singaporean law should apply in the case at bar
Whether NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71 can be retroactively applied

HELD:
On the first issue our ruling is that Norse is not applicable to the present petition.
The, reason is that in that case, it was specifically stipulated by the parties in the
Crew Agreement that compensation shall be paid in accorance with the
Philippine Law or registry of the vessel, whichever is greater. That was why the
higher benefits prescribed by the foreign law were awarded. By contrast, no such
stipulation appears in the Crew Agreement now under consideration. Instead, it is
clearly stated in the crew agreement that benefits shall be in accordance with
NSB format. The consequence is that the petitioner cannot now claim a higher
award than the compensation prescribed in the said format.

On the second issue, NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71 became effective only
on December 1981 or seven months after the death of Joseph. The applicable
law in the case at bar is NSB Memorandum Circular No. 46 which is the
governing law at the time of death of Joseph. It would be unjust to compel them
to pay benefits based on a law not yet in effect at the time the contingency
occurs.